After Helene knocked out power in parts of my area for a little over 14 days, I found out that a friend of ours used his cybertruck to power his house through the entire mess. He'd run the house on it for a couple of days, then drive the cybertruck over to a super charger station, recharge, then come home and plug the house back in.
The battery capacity on those things is equivalent to 9 Tesla Powerwall units or something close to it.
They may be ugly, but the emergency prepper in me always wanted one after hearing that story. Before, I always wanted to install powerwalls...but I never considered in an extended event being able to drive my powerwalls somewhere to recharge them.
This seems like an awfully niche case, no? How often does someone lose power at home for days, while also having a nearby and accessible charging station that stays functional the whole time? Most of the disasters I'm aware of people either get their power back in a short enough amount of time that they can use a normal generator for the gap, or things are bad and widespread enough that they aren't driving down the street to recharge their vehicle.
Also very important: the cybertruck is not the only vehicle capable of doing that (the keywords are V2H and V2L, V2H is the more convenient — the car just plugs into the mains and acts as a house battery — while V2L means you have to go and plug your stuff to the car's mains outputs directly)
> Most of the disasters I'm aware of people either get their power back in a short enough amount of time that they can use a normal generator for the gap
TBF an EV car has an absolutely massive battery relative to the electric consumption of a house, unless you're using resistive heating all around. Especially if you ration use.
I live in an area prone to high winds and we occasionally have pre-planned power shutdowns (I think PSPS is the term).
My Ioniq 5 has been a godsend. No, it can't power the house without dorking around with my electrical panel. But we can run the fridge, dishwasher, a few standing lights and keep phones and computers full charged.
I used a similar setup to Alex's but with the outlet in the rear seat instead of the V2X connector. I will probably by the V2X connector since it supposedly hanldles higher power draw.
I was going to make a joke about ludicrous speed, but then remembered that automatic dishwashers for restaurants typically clean dishes in under two minutes.
It’s only me and my partner and we run it every single day. To be fair we both work from home so we generate more dishes than two people that go to work I suppose but I just hate doing them by hand
I think a really in-depth look at how people use dishwashers would be pretty interesting. There are a lot of surprisingly strong opinions about right ways to do it. Of course knowing the right way is also interesting, but how people came to be so convinced that their way was the right way would be even more interesting to me-- I suspect there are a lot of hidden generational and socioeconomic attitudes hidden in there.
Mmmh no? 90kWh battery packs are not that common. An M3 or MY LR AWD have an 82kWh. Some Mercedes and some Chinese model have a 100+kWh battery but the most common setup is between 60 and 70.
Anyway I agree that in emergency conditions it can go a looong way for a house.
30 kWh per day, while a clunky unit, is what most people would understand when talking about home consumption. It’ll be what their utility typically reports, how you’d want to size a battery, etc.
It's like you had a faucet with cross section of 2 square inches, and 15 seconds with that faucet wide open would fill a jug. That jug holds 30 squareinches-seconds of water.
You may then use that water over the course of a day. That's 30 sqin-sec per day. That is not 30 square inches for a whole day. It's second per day.
Or watt hour per week or whatever.
Yes, it can be described like 0.00034722 sqin/day, and that corresponds to no physical object and that would be largely useless.
Why not Joules or Liters? Because that's complicated for anything electrical.
"30kW per day" makes no sense. It's like saying "100km/h per day". W is a unit of power, Wh is a unit of energy.
It's unintuitive because a guy named Watt decided "Joule per second" is Watt, so the intuitive units Joule and Joule per second got turned on their head to W times hour and Watt. This is opposite to usual intuition of distance and speed for example, km and km/h. If I redefined the km/h to a "tick", then a km would become "tick times hour".
If you want a "better than nothing" but imperfect analogy, Wh is how much water you have in a bottle, and W is how quickly you can get the water out.
And yet all utilities of the world decided to use kWh as the thing to measure. Also basically all smart measurement devices settled on this being the default to show. Exactly in the way he used it here, kw per day, kw per week, kw per month, kw per year.
This discussion seems super silly, considering he's just using the measurement that the industry adopted decades ago...
Are y'all just coming out of a time travel device from the 70s or something?
No, their point is wrong either way and there is no way to steel man it without saying the comment is extremely poorly articulated.
30kWh is 1.25kW for 24 hours or 30kW for one hour.
30kW every hour means 720kWh per day. 30kW all day is also 720kWh per day.
The comment is nonsense.
The only way you can steel man it is by saying he isn't concerned about the 1.25kW, he is concerned about the swings, but he said 30kW twice for two different time spans so that can't be it either.
The value of a used 24 KWh battery used in, say, an old EV non-tesla car - $2000 (note this still has plenty of life left). Example: a 2013 Nissan Leaf
The value of the same, repurposed to a "powerwall" - $10k per 10 KWh
The value of it once attached to a "movable powerwall" - :) add a few more zeros
You can get good batteries for a lot cheaper than a power wall. Just like when the Tesla family of companies tried to do home solar - big premium for the name.
If you have a string inverter setup, I’m not aware of anything good that is cheaper. If you have micro inverters then sure, but otherwise you have additional hardware cost.
If you're a hearing this story and only thinking about it in the way you are, then you're just not being very imaginative. It's a mobile power plant. You can power anything, not just a house. Imagine anything you'd want to use a generator for, but replace it with the EV batteries. I'm trying to guide away from being specific to cybertruck, as maybe the lack of imagination also limits the thoughts here too. In fact, the Ford F150 Lightning was advertised as the truck being a battery power source as a feature. Guys using it on a job site to power tools, powering the house, and several other concepts were shown in the video.
Just really confused on how "smart readers" can get so scoped in to see a single point rather than the wider view. Forest through the trees something something
Most people (like me) don't have generators. But when I hear "oh, BTW this car can be a used as a generator for 48-72 hours in a power outage", that's a nice little selling point that might put me over the edge if i'm otherwise considering the car. No, this doesn't solve for Hurricane Katrina. But it does solve for a nor'easter.
It probably does though, unless you have stockpiled gas. If the power is down to the gas station, the pumps don't work.
My experience with power outages (after big summer storms, not a hurricane thank goodness) has been that my neighborhood is impacted, but that places nearby have power. They tend to restore commercial first, so the supercharger near me is up and running before my house.
> If the power is down to the gas station, the pumps don't work.
In places where long power outages are common (hurricane areas), many gas stations have their own generators (they also have a convenient source of fuel to run them!)
I know you're being snarky, but the chemical process for that exists! It's called the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. You take air, CO2 specifically, and then run the process, which needs electricity, possibly from solar panels, and get diesel/gasoline/jet fuel out the other end! Isn't science amazing?
There are practical issues with it, but it's possible. The question is EROI or Energy Return on Investment. Do you get more energy from it than it took to make it, which unfortunately is not there yet. Shrinking it down to fit into your backyard is an exercise left for the reader.
I think your math is off some how. I have a Model 3 and two Leafs and we charge them from our 39 400 Watt panels without trouble. They are always ready to go fully charged unless one of the boys has been doing more than normal of driving to the beach with a girlfriend and then borrowing the Model 3 for a concert, or whatever fun involves using all the stored energy at the same time (e.g. not commutes to school or work).
My 12 kw solar system charges my 32kwh battery in a few hours on sunny days. But to be fair, your system is even larger, and both of our solar systems are larger than average for home solar. A 5 kw system would indeed take days to charge a typical ev battery from zero to full.
Ok but the problem with this argument is that you could come up with a hypothetical EV that can store enough energy to last a year and then take a year to charge.
And yet nothing prevents you from driving daily.
What matters is how much range you drive and recharge, not how big your battery is.
There are many hours in a day and EVs are pretty efficient. You might struggle if your goal is to drive 200km per day but if all you want is to drive to work or go shopping, you'll be fine.
Probably when they invent a genset that can sustain its surrounding structure being immolated in a wildfire?
I'm 100% off grid on solar in the middle of nowhere. My panels could burn up, get hit by hail, get searched by law enforcement, flooded out, eaten by mice, stolen by miscreants, abducted by aliens or buried in snow. And of course in the event of a volcano they are probably not gonna function well.
So they are of course totally unworkable in events when the power grid is down.
But I like using them and they've been reliable so far...
Be sure and use a clear liquid stabilizer! The one I used had red dye in it and it gummed up the carburetor. Also, I never use any ethanol fuel in my generator.
Last year, I let a fairly new portable generator with low hours on sit with gas in it for 6 months and it would not fire up. It wouldn't even sputter.
That was surprising to me because it was working quite well when parked, and I'm used to doing things like leaving lawnmowers outside continuously (including over the winter) without much trouble, but that's what happened anyway.
I drained the old fuel out and replaced with fresh, and it fired up on the first subsequent half-assed pull of the starter rope.
(Which reminds me: It's been six months again already. Time to see if it still works.)
A fairly new snowblower of mine had gas left in it over the summer. Before the first snowfall of the following winter it would not start. A dissection of the carburetor revealed numerous places where small passages were completely filled with a sticky gummy substance that had to be mechanically removed. After cleaning and reassembly, it fired right up with fresh gas. Maybe the old gas would have worked just fine once it could flow. Clearly having the gas sit in there had adverse effects.
The carb on this generator has a drain for the bowl. It should've been dry in there when parked. I don't know what the insides looked like because replacing the gas was easy and it worked, so I stopped troubleshooting at that point. :)
HN is full of maintenance purists, and I do know I should do better, but... A Corolla will work fine after sitting for a year or so and it’s once-or-twice-per-decade oil change seems to work ok.
Keep in mind that different gas "engines" have different type fuel systems. Your Corolla has a high pressure fuel pump, which forces the fuel to pressurize the injectors. The fuel is ignited by a high voltage spark system. Small engines are a "pick up" type system, which can't tolerate almost any resistance. I run my portable generator for a half hour every other month. Except for using some red dye stabilizer (which gummed up the carb), I've never had a failed start. I no longer use any stabilizer in my fuel.
Unless you are trying to race your car at the drag strip with charged air and hit your best times, that isn't true at all and I don't know why people keep saying it. You think everybody empties their lawn mowers, snow blowers, snowmobiles, generators, etc. every year of gas or before trying to start it up again the next year? No way.
Simpler gas equipment like mowers and generators don't have enough compression to really care about anything but ancient gas, and if you run any vehicle that is multi-fuel capable it can detect and adjust compression based on a fuel's capabilities.
Ive been repairing and fixing junkers of cars, mowers, ATVs, generators, and more for 30 years and not once has bad gas stopped something from running. I only remove it if it was clearly having water raining into the tank. In every other case where I couldn't start something after sitting around for 5+ years, it was from the gas gumming up in the carb or the shitty diaphragm pump, which generally means there is little to no gas left to start with.
I wouldn't even suspect gas of ever being bad unless it was atleast a few years old. If the tank was open it could have evaporated, if the tank was closed it probably ain't great gas but I bet it would still run in anything but a high compression application.
The spark timing determines how much compression is in the cylinder at the moment the fuel/air mixture is ignited. So, while it's technically true that it's the spark timing that's being adjusted, the thing that is being controlled for is the compression.
Ford has had options like this forever and it's usually targeted at farmers and ranchers, I think the first I've found was like a 77 or 78 f250 'rancher' that had a generator option on the main belt off the motor. The ads show a guy cutting boards with a skill saw to mend a fence or something.
edit: I think these also had a ford branded chainsaw over the wheel well on the other side of the engine bay.
Had to look this up, not great pics but very cool:
"The generator was called the Electric Power Pak. From 1969 to 1972, Ford offered a 2,500-watt underhood generator, mostly on the Contractor’s Special, though it could be special ordered on other trucks. It also wasn’t driven off the engine’s belt. It was a separate Onan generator with its own 5.5 hp air-cooled single-cylinder engine, feeding an outlet in the bed. It sat on the driver’s side splash pan. The package the commenter calls a “Rancher” is likely the Farm & Ranch Special, which is one of the trucks that came with it.
The chainsaw was real. Ford sold Ford-blue chainsaws from 1970 to about 1976. They were rebadged Ohlsson & Rice saws: the Eagle I/II and the smaller Hawk. A mount was also sold that held the saw on the F-250’s driver’s side inner fender"
I have one, and I have powered my house with it on a few occasions. I made the purchase after a friend of mine ran his for four days straight. I always fill up the tank if there are storms coming.
When I was shopping in 2025, this was the only truck with that kind of output.
I almost purchased that truck, but I needed a higher cargo capacity for my travel trailer, and the added batteries reduced it by 250lbs or so. The ability to plug a travel trailer directly into the truck and run it is really cool.
2024 and later Toyota Tacomas (and 4Runners and Landcriusers, I think) with the hybrid iForce Max power train have a 120V 2400W outlet. It will run briefly from the traction battery before starting the engine to recharge.
Mine, too. It's pretty great as a car. Gas goes in one hole, exhaust comes out of another, and the wheels go 'round and round. It's awesome.
As an electrical generator, it's really not very good. The alternator is rated at 120 Amps (bigger than many, smaller than others).
At 13.8v, that's only 1,656 Watts -- on a good day, with the engine wound up. But the engine won't be wound up. It will instead be idling. The output will be less than 1656 Watts.
It burns right around 0.6 gallons of gasoline per hour (ie 22kW!) while idling and doing ~nothing else. It holds 21 gallons of gas.
So the unachievable best-case of idling-and-doing-no-real-work means that if it starts with a full tank of fuel, it will run out in 35 hours.
And in the real world, it will be doing work since that's the whole point of the exercise. It will therefore use somewhat more than its do-nothing 0.6 gallons per hour idle consumption.
We can ignore the longevity issues of treating a gas-fired vehicle as a stationary generator (these are expensive parts that are getting abnormally heat-soaked) because this is a temporary solution to a temporary problem, but as a practical matter: I'll still need to fill it up with gas, however I do that[1], about every day.
And, sure: That can be a way to solve some problems. With a decent inverter stashed out of the weather, connected with appropriately-big cables, I can probably use it to run the gas-fired furnace, the fridge and freezer, some lights, and some digital entertainment. Maybe it can't run all of that at the same time, but I'm smart and I'll manage.
The gas-fired car probably is useful, as long as I can drive somewhere and fill it back up.
---
Or: I could just plug stuff into an appropriate EV. It can sit there quietly being the giant battery that it is, and I can drive it out every couple/three days, or maybe just once per week as some suggest, to fill it back up.
It won't have an idle baseload of anywhere near the equivalent of 0.6 gallons of gasoline and it will therefore respond well to intermittent, dynamic loads like heat and refrigeration.
The EV is probably more-useful, as long as I can drive somewhere and charge it back up.
---
[1]: Sure, sure. I can carry a large quantity of gasoline to make the trips more-worthwhile. I can even store some locally (it's a pain to keep it fresh, but do-able).
If I were into that kind of prepping then what would be my practical limit? An extra 40 gallons, for ~60 overall? Great! Now I can run the car/house combo for 3 days before heading back out, and the EV still probably wins on this metric.
First, 'nearby' can be a 1 hr drive and still be worth it to commute every few days. Second, tornadoes, storms, and floods have exactly that pattern where damage can be block by block.
But it is still cheaper to stockpile some generators and gas than stockpile a cybertruck. If there's an EV charging station up within a 1 hr drive, gas stations are also going to be up.
Even if you can’t easily recharge, it’s a great way to power your home for a few days. It’s arguably a very cost-efficient home backup solution, assuming you were already in the market for an EV.
A Cybertruck has nearly 10x the battery capacity of a single Powerwall, and to buy that much Powerwall capacity would cost at least as much as a Cybertruck. Even a Tesla Model 3 (which now supports home backup) is over 5x Powerwalls.
You still have to pay to install home backup support on your home’s breaker (at least $10k), but you don’t need anywhere near the amount of very expensive supplemental home batteries.
Also, even an EV with a 120V outlet and no home backup support could be very useful for recharging a portable battery bank.
We priced this out when we bought our Ford F150 generator on wheels. It was maybe 3k including parts and labor. We opted to go without the fancy socket and breaker, and it cost us about 600 USD.
The cheaper version even, which may be what you are talking about, is literally just a piece of plastic or metal called an interlock on the breaker box that prevents the main from being on while the generator inlet is supplying power (backfeeding the line). Then all you need to do is install the inlet on top of that which when I did this a few years ago was around $1,000 USD all in parts and labor.
Electricians like their transfer switches because they are right sized and everything, e.g. they are more foolproof for the end user to operate, but the interlock approach actually gives you more control because every breaker is allowed (a transfer switch will only expose some small subset of all your breakers usually), you just have to manage the power supply yourself.
Sorry, that’s for a full Tesla Powerwall (which includes its own 13.5 kWh battery) which is required to use the recently-announced Model 3 and Y home backup feature. The Cybertruck only needs the gateway and wall connector, which is still $2k plus labor.
Some one mentioned something similar about their Ford Lightning in a previous thread. If a whole truck with batteries cost less than the same bare batteries then people buying powerwalls are getting absolutely screwed.
I’m not that familiar with the Powerwall ecosystem, but the equipment and installation that connects to your breaker is non-trivial. But I’ve seen people who add bulk OEM batteries to other home backup systems and those are fairly cheap.
Regardless, the thing that’s really great for cost effectiveness is that the same large battery can be used everyday for driving and also used rarely for emergency home backup systems.
You want at least one actual PowerWall so that your house doesn't go down when you take your truck on an errand. But yeah, if you're buying 4+ PowerWalls you're probably better off getting an EV with V2H capabilities instead.
You're looking backwards in time. Look forwards and it makes more sense.
With climate change causing more extreme weather events and an aging and increasingly more and more difficult to update power grid facing unprecedented strains, I think power disruptions like this are more likely than less. So it makes sense when you look forward rather than backwards in time.
This is exactly what I do. My cabin is in a rural area that gets a lot of power outages, and it also happens to be < 10 min away from a supercharger. When I was getting quotes for a home battery backup system, every other option was astronomically more expensive than the cybertruck. I don’t know why adding wheels to the battery pack makes it a lot less expensive but I’m not complaining. It’s good to have an extra vehicle I can use in the event of an emergency as well.
This is one of those things that happens in rural areas, "the city" (which is not actually a city in any sense but the legal one) gets power on in a day or so but your neighborhood 10 miles away doesn't get power for another week because the population density is something like 50/sq mile at most. And that's just for the people in actual neighborhoods, if you're on a farm or something where the nearest neighbor is a mile down the highway I don't even know how long it takes them to fix your power lines.
I grew up in the country, just not far from a town of 2000, but had friends who were more remote, and my power is, well not exactly less reliable now that I’m in the city, but not necessarily better. They would have power to my house or my friends house back pretty quick. Longest I remember was maybe 4 hours. We’ve had 36 hour outages in the city (more than half a million people). I do think we had more outages in the country, but never very long. Structure of the distribution network? Ease of accessing the lines?
>Structure of the distribution network? Ease of accessing the lines?
Ice storms/blizzards in the upper midwest can last days and make roads impassible to the point where they can't/don't fix the very many downed lines until the storm passes enough that they don't have to deprioritize rural roads and outages.
It's just not safe/possible to fix a line downed by ice when it's -30 out in blizzard conditions even if the trucks could navigate the roads.
This turns into the occasional several day outage for some folks.
I've also lived in parts of cities that essentially were impossible to have power failures absent very local equipment failures (like the power equipment attaching my building to the grid failing once) because the lines were underground and there was a power plant very close by.
It depends on a lot of things and lots of people assume everywhere else is just like where they are.
Power outages at least where the live are a fairly common occurrence (overhead local power lines get taken out by trees if there is a big blow), power is usually restored in 1-48hrs. A lot of people have backups (generators or batteries) but those are fairly expensive when you amortize them against cost / hour of outage. Having that backup up power available at no incremental cost is pretty nice to have.
During a “power cut” there is usually reduced capacity on the grid, not zero capacity. They typically cut power to homes while keeping power on for business. The homes get power on a rolling blackout, so they have power for a few hours per day.
I expect that the charging station will be in an industrial park with an industrial power supply.
The opposite usually happens. Homes are protected by cutting power to industrial customers who bulk purchase power at a discounted rate.
The option to cut power are negotiated into the service contracts.
For instance an aluminum smelter may need a certain amount of notice to shut down their machinery, so they may negotiate an hour of notice or whatever they need. The power company may have to briefly load shed residential while still in the notice period, but then they take the smelter offline and restore service.
I find it highly likely that high consumption electric car fast charging site would negotiate to be the first in line to have their power cut given they don't have any equipment that could be damaged and they'd be most interested in discounted power.
With unlimited money, sure, but your typical prepper would be able to fund a decent portable gas generator and jerry cans (or even a natural gas line) without a need for financing.
Because when you produce more energy than you need, you need to store it somewhere and if the cost is roughly equivalent for that place to be mobile vs a static construction, choosing the mobile one is superior.
Standard grid-tie systems shut themselves off during a grid outage due to anti-islanding safety requirements.
If you want your solar panels to be operational during an outage, the typical install for this is a system that already includes batteries.
There are specialized options that exist with islanding features, but if you didn't install your solar system specifically for this you probably don't have it.
Is this thread being astroturfed? This defence for the Cybertruck ITT is one of the least rational threads I've seen on HN in the past few years and if the CT was actually valuable tech it wouldn't be one of the worst selling vehicles of all time.
Are you maybe a bit overreacting? The question of emergency power is a rational one and no one here said they thinj a cybertruck is awesome because of it. Just that this is a selling point.
I am certainly overreacting. I was just dumbfounded by the question I was responding too. If the concern is emergency power there are so many better alternatives than a cybertruck. If the concern is storing an abundance of solar power there are much better alternatives than a cybertruck. I don't want to come onto HN and be marketed products; I come to HN for tech news and to see cool software that people build, not to be marketed a cybertruck.
> The question of emergency power is a rational one
And the additional value of Cybertruck in this question is about $1000 - $1500. $1k of additional value for $60k purchase is still a selling point, but marginally small selling point.
There was a great write up by a Bosnian survivor about prepping vs reality and the top concerns were fuel, cooking oil, and paper goods. Water didn’t even make the list.
Diesel can't be stored forever. Maybe a few years with stabilizer. So you need to remember to rotate it out (and have some use for the fuel you're rotating out).
Much easier to just buy some solar panels to recharge the electric truck.
A prepper will already be rotating out food and water anyway. Solar is still a good idea, but so is having fuel powered generators. Might not be too much sunshine in situations like a nuclear winter or geoengineering gone wrong.
>Diesel can't be stored forever. Maybe a few years with stabilizer. So you need to remember to rotate it out (and have some use for the fuel you're rotating out). Much easier to just buy some solar panels to recharge the electric truck.
Much easier to use diesel in your diesel-powered vehicle.
And then you have much, much energy in your stockpile.
Diesel just lengthens the storage time. You still have to go somewhere to get it when your onsite tank runs dry. For the electric side you could also have a bunch of solar panels. Lots of choices.
And if the needle is so far towards apocalypse, then the horse beats your diesel. Repairs itself, refuels itself, and replaces itself.
If you can choose between a truck that becomes a dead weight when the nearby power plant comes offline, and a truck that won't, the prepper mentality is to choose the latter.
Take it from a Ukrainian.
PS: my dual-fuel gasoline/LPG Renault Twingo in Poland will outrun any Cybertruck on the continent.
And, unlike electricity, you can stockpile gasoline.
Propane, sure, but now you're talking about something fairly exotic, at least in terms of vehicles you can buy "off the shelf."
In any case, you can't produce propane yourself. You can "produce" electrons with a solar panel.
Edit: My bias is toward North America, but I know of only one model of "normal person car" (city buses don't count) produced in the last 50 years that you could just walk into a dealership and purchase new: The Honda Civic NX. And that was sold for only a few years and only available in California.
I do agree with you on solar for moving off grid. I'm working to convert my full farm and most farm rigs to battery over time because "You can't be your own refinery, but you can be your own power plant."
But for conversations sake, if we're talking about diesel trucks, and specifically an old mechanical diesel like a 7.3 ford or a 12 valve cummins, and we're talking about stored diesel, ideally a class D died diesel with a high sulfer content, then you'll get considerably more lifetime out of it than the recommended 18-24 months.
Additionally, you can burn about anything, old motor oil, fry oil, diesel with algee in it if you treat it and change your filters. A good, mechanical, not very picky diesel will burn fuel that is 20+ years old. Not forever, and you'll go through some filters and maybe injectors. By the time you get to fuel sources that can't be burned in a machine like that, or you've burned it up past your parts and ability to repair. you'll probably have a lot of other problems.
If we're talking generators, you can get off the shelf propane generators and propane stores well.
>You can't stockpile gasoline for a long time without stabilizer.
If you have a vehicle that runs on gasoline, you don't have to store gasoline for a long time to have a stockpile.
The cost of a few empty canisters is by far smaller than the cost of solar batteries, and putting gas into a vehicle in case of an emergency within a span of seconds rather than hours is a huge asset.
Not to mention: not everyone has space for solar. City dwellers are particularly constrained (as in: people who live in apartment complexes).
God how I wish I had a dual fuel vehicle. In my fever dream my natural gas service entrance would double as a gas station and I could just gas up my car in a few minutes at home with a compressor.
In about 25 years, I've twice been out twice for multiple days and one of those was in summer which was a nuisance rather than a potential really serious problem. (Worst case, I buy ice for coolers and maybe need to toss some food.) But I live just off a (major) country road so I'm probably pretty high on the power restoration schedule.
That sort of thing happens all the time. All it takes is, say, a big fallen tree in the wrong spot. Its entirely possible for just your road to be SOL for days, if the local utility is otherwise completely swamped by bigger issues from whatever disaster is going on.
Greetings from Northern California! Multi-day power outages are not at all uncommon (though I've never seen 14 days). We had one about a month ago. Most people just have generators, but if you wanted to use a Cybertruck instead, the nearest superchargers are one hour away and do not go offline when we lose power.
I suspect an hour's drive is getting close to the point where the supercharger solution gets frustratingly annoying. You have to budget 1/3 of your energy just to the round trip, which will take you at least 4 hours for a complete fill, and may only get you 2 days of power.
But it's not bad to ride out the first couple of days if you've got 120kWh just sitting in your garage.
Not niche at all. Loss of power for days is common in areas of strong storms with above ground power lines. States frequented by hurricanes and strong storms can experience days to weeks without power.
Ford has also marketed their hybrid F150 as being able to power home appliances for several years.
We've got the batteries attached to our house instead of our car, but I have to admit that having it in my car instead of paying to have more attached to my house (we want more) is a really, really tempting option.
Living in Ukraine, I can tell you it's not niche here. Most homeowners without power walls already consider buying an EV because you also get to drive it to an area that has electricity at the time.
If you're already committed to owning a bigass $100K electric truck this is an inarguably awesome side benefit. It's a truck, so... you have a few hundred miles of range. Slightly better than "down the street."
But for the other 99.99% of humanity, there are certainly more cost-effective ways. A portable power station and solar panels are probably the better move unless you have some really massive power needs.
(Admittedly, a nuclear winter reduces the effectiveness of those solar panels somewhat)
> But for the other 99.99% of humanity, there are certainly more cost-effective ways.
Are you telling us that you are not planning to buy Tesla Roadster? But what about the situation when there will be huge snow storm and humongous tree will fall across the road, and you will be like really hungry and you could just to fly over it and not starve to death?
Actually, if my car worked as a whole-house UPS and base smart battery (charging at night when power is cheap, drawing during day when it's expensive), that's a pretty nice value-add for a vehicle purchase.
Doesn't make sense for what they are charging for it. But still!
Preppers are just about as niche as you can get; they're still a valid customer prototype! I'm sure more than a few solar home owners chose it as a PowerWall.
At 6000lbs+ it's a section 179 write off; if you combine that with some of the previous incentives the car was not that expensive to the right population.
Not really. Some areas in California have multiple PSPS outages during fire season. Many people have gotten gas generators or powerwalls to deal with it, but using your EV would be ideal.
Why would that be ideal? I would be worried constantly about if I'm trading electricity in my house for the ability to go somewhere in an emergency. If it's such a real concern you even think about it when buying a car you should have a dedicated device.
Generators have solved this problem. My family used to lose electricity anytime there was a semi serious snow storm. We got a gasoline generator after the second time and it was always sufficient. We never needed to siphon gas from the car either. We later transitioned to a natural gas generator. The lines are all underground and tie into the existing system for the stove and dryer. No car involved.
First thing I thought of was if I had a gasoline generator, I'd probably invest the $5 or so into a hand siphon. You can even keep it running as you go to refill up your vehicle!
Yeah... even powerwalls and equivalent don't seem to be a good just-in-case solution. A gas generator costs 5% for the same capacity, and you can just go get some extra gas when the storm comes. I'm all for electrification, but after doing the math, it doesn't work for this particular corner case.
I think a powerwall or similar only makes sense with solar, but an EV can be a nice emergency supply for little extra cost as long as you don’t need it often.
Other commenters are pointing out places where it isn’t that niche, but I just want to call out that there’s a whole cottage industry for preppers that would eat this up. I would consider a 30-pound bucket full of shelf-stable Mac and cheese “pretty niche,” but it flew off the shelves at Costco.
I'm not sure it is. I've considered getting home batteries for power outages (due to fires), and frankly given the install cost, using a car is compelling. Not only do they have enormous batteries (a model 3 has a 57.5 kwh battery and can be acquired for 20k), but they can be driven to recharge every few days if need be.
Where I'm located, in most cases when there is an outage, neighboring areas do have power.
Specifically for my model 3, I've been considering tapping into the HV system manually to keep my Ecoflow battery topped up, but I wish there was a way to directly connect it.
I've got a friend who does it simply to fuck PG&E and avoid an electric bill. He has workplace charging, a Cybertruck, and a powerwall + Tesla solar setup at home. He drives his truck to work, fills up on electricity, drives it home at the end of the day, and uses it to power his house. Repeat the next day. The Cybertruck was cheaper than the 13 PowerWalls or whatever that's the equivalent battery capacity.
Technically not stealing, it's a legal workplace benefit. Possibly abuses the spirit of the policy and may get the policy changed if enough people do it, but he's only doing what he's entitled to.
And there's actually a good chance that PG&E is not being paid: most of the big tech companies have large solar installations covering the parking lot which power all the EV chargers, so they cut PG&E out of it entirely and produce their own power.
PG&E has special tariffs for meters that are used only for powering commercial EV chargers ("BEV1" and "BEV2"). They're about half of what a residential consumer would pay for an EV-only meter (the "EV-B" tariff).
Actually no, and in fact almost all EVs are capable of powering a house for quite a while. It would be excellent if this was not just a Cybertruck-exclusive feature since here in the bay area we have shitty infrastructure too and power outages happen several times per winter.
I saw it happen during Katrina. Neighborhoods within an easy drive of each other where one had power, and the other not. Not to mention the fact that vehicle charging stations may well be prioritized to restore power.
It’s niche just because natural disasters are thankfully relatively rare, but I still think having good contingencies is worth it.
> Not to mention the fact that vehicle charging stations may well be prioritized to restore power
Electric vehicles won't, ever, be prioritized over bringing up residential, commercial and emergency services. The fact that even on a super charger it's 20+ minutes to charge a Cybertruck means the two or three at the local gas station will just end up with 12+ hour lines. Even now generators are fueled before private vehicles.
Bringing up power after disasters is super dangerous as is. A lot of systems that hadn't been turned off in years do a cold start, and sparks fly. It's why the power company and fire departments coordinate very very closely on grid work.
You know someone's going to try and bypass any safeties and circuit breakers and end up taking down their house when they try to restore power after a flood or something. People already regularly die from running their generator in the garage and most of these aren't wired directly into house mains.
Ice storms in the Midwest can knock power out for several days in rural areas. Urban areas usually get brought back online sooner than the rural areas. A few years ago a bad one knocked out power at a friend’s house for three weeks.
Not uncommon in parts of California where certain legs of the grid are shut down for high wind events. If you live in Pacifica, you might have your power out for 3 to 5 days, but there will be reliable power in San Francisco 20 minutes away.
An awful lot Elon’s products seem uniquely capable in extreme niche cases primarily caused by America‘s horrendous track record of maintaining, upgrading, and filling in traditional infrastructure.
Two observations with complaining about America's infrastructure:
1. America is huge. Comparing it to places in Europe is like comparing it to New Hampshire.
2. American has imported tons of people who are incapable of sustaining a high standard of living on their own. It only takes a few percent shift in GDP/person to change how much infrastructure you can build and maintain unless you are truly willing to let all the folks with less than a high school education and no special job skills live in favelas.
I really should not engage with the bigotry you demonstrated in your point two, but I will still offer you a rebuttal.
Iceland (part of Europe) is the size of Florida with 2/3 the population of Wyoming. 20% of Iceland’s population are 1st generation immigrants. Neither of those facts prevents Iceland from filling in, upgrading, and maintaining their infrastructure. The two week power blackout which GP’s friend experienced is unheard of in Iceland. And every population center, no matter how remote and low population (we are talking fewer then 100) still gets broadband internet via traditional infrastructure.
I also want to note that I did not compare America with Europe, you did that. And it is a determent to your argument (as if your racism didn’t do that already).
Acknowledging the existence of people without educations is not bigotry. For example, can you explain why remote tribes in the amazon rainforest don't all have space programs? I think it's because the lack the societal and individual development to have the productive capacity to do such a thing. Why do you think they don't? It's economic reality that if there is only a limited number of people who can do a thing, the amount of that thing is going to be limited. And when you abstract that through culture and modern life, the way you say that is GDP per capita.
You know that Helene was a category 4 hurricane that crossed six states, affected tens of millions of people and cause $78 billion dollars in damage. It was a major event like nothing that has ever happened in Iceland. That level of event in Iceland would remove it as a going concern.
To respond to your add, yes I brought up Europe because outside of Europe there are like 3 countries that even have comparable infrastructure to the US. If you say "America has a terrible track record with infrastructure." Then the implication is that there is somewhere that does better. And my argument is that selectively you can probably find places but nothing as large as the US or with as many people who can't contribute to it's maintenance. (Did you know that in the US more than 50% of households are not net tax payers? All of the American infrastructure burden is carried by less than half of the households.) Your example of Iceland has 13000 KM of roads, of which 7,300 KM are paved. How is that some comparison?
> Acknowledging the existence of people without educations is not bigotry.
It is. Education has been an excuse for discrimination for a long time. When you describe a whole demographic as being uneducated you are applying exactly the kind of rhetoric which white Rhodesians used to excuse their discrimination[1].
> You know that Helene was a category 4 hurricane that crossed six states.
A Volcano erupted in the town of Grindavík, the main line which connected the town to it’s power plant, went under lava. The town was out of power for a maximum of 7 days.[2]
But in any case, 2 week long blackouts are extremely common in the USA regardless of the severity of the natural disaster. When I first moved to the Seattle area in 2016 a common snow storm caused a blackout which lasted for 2 weeks in some areas outside of Seattle. The reason for the length of the blackouts in the USA is simply due to the quality and maintenance of the infrastructure and any lack of action plans to fix them when they break.
> It is. Education has been an excuse for discrimination for a long time. When you describe a whole demographic as being uneducated you are applying exactly the kind of rhetoric which white Rhodesians used to excuse their discrimination[1].
Modern Zimbabwe is not particularly known for having reliable electric infrastructure, even by the low standards of sub-Saharan Africa. This is not a good argument against the parent commenter's point.
Comparing a volcanic eruption, a totally stationary event with predictable flows, that affected 3500 people in a town, where most of the residents have since left because of the problems living there, to a class 4 hurricane that crossed over six states, hundreds of miles, and affected millions of people, is dumb.
I've lived in the Seattle area since 2007. There has not been any power outage that affected 3000+ homes that has lasted longer than a day.
Additionally, Seattle area does not have common snow storms. It has extremely infrequent snow storms and thus has no reason to have lots of cold weather equipment. What we do have is frequent wind storms and lots and lots of trees (orders of magnitude more trees than all of Iceland, for example) and the wind often knocks trees into power lines and those are fixed in less than a day. In terms of neglect, that's not a problem. The longest outage I've ever had in the suburbs is 18 hours.
The real reason for the long duration blackouts is not failure to maintain infrastructure, it's because of natural disasters that damage and destroy entire swaths of infrastructure in a single event over thousands of sq km.
That someone, somewhere once used some accusation about a trait of populations as a form of discrimination does not mean that every recognition of that trait in a different population is also discrimination. Like, we can look at a person and say "oh, he never finished high school" that doesn't mean we're irrationally discriminating against him. You discriminate on exactly this basis every single day. You don't have people who don't know driving/cooking/medicine/engineering/automobile repair/etc. provide those services to you. I guess you're a bigot.
> Comparing a volcanic eruption, [...], to a class 4 hurricane [...], is dumb.
I agree. One can judge America’s lousy infrastructure and lack of action plan on its own merits. There is no reason to bring Europe into this. All I am saying is, America’s sparse population, nor the education level of immigrants is not an excuse.
these are such classic american thought-terminating cliches. "we have more land and more people than anywhere else" "our population contains too many migrants who aren't as smart as americans used to be" etc etc. the different states and territories that make up the USA all have analogous counterpart countries whether you're comparing climate, population in the absolute, population density, GDP, or any other metric you care to name. many of the comparable countries will have a worse standard of infrastructure than that US state, but there will always be several which perform better, usually utilising fewer resources.
the thing all american states have in common is their american ideology, their american political economy, and their population of americans. it just so happens that these are almost always found, coincidentally or not, alongside extremely outdated and poorly-maintained infrastructure, and a class of ultra-rich parasites hoarding many of the resources. drawing connections between any of these phenomena is left as an exercise to the reader
Even outside of natural disasters, it's a very useful feature for people in the construction business and similar fields where mains power might not be always available.
Another way to view this is that driving a cybertruck every day is quite wasteful (no different than driving a full size gas pickup every day). One recharge cycle in a cybertruck uses enough energy to power a typical home for 8 days, 130kWh. If you aren’t doing truck things with it, it’s better to drive a more efficient EV or hybrid car. It uses almost twice as much Wh per mile compared to a model Y.
I think this is why these EV trucks don’t do well (ford also cancelled the F150 lightning). For truck things, they aren’t particularly capable (you’d get less than 100 miles towing). For daily driving duty, a car or small suv is much more efficient. You can power your home during a storm from most EVs these days, you’d just have to top it up more often
Cybertruck uses like a fifth of the energy of a full size gas pickup truck and is only like 50% more than a typical smaller sized EV. The truth is that most homes don't use much energy apart from hvac. The Chevy Bolt can also power a home for several days if you only have the fridge and lights running.
Yes, but a gas engine is so inefficient that it loses more than half of that energy to waste heat. But almost all of the electricity is converted into useful power in an EV. A 600hp Cybertruck will go 13 miles on $1 of electricity, but a 400hp F-150 can only go 4.5 miles for $1 of gas. 50% more power at 1/3rd the fuel cost is a pretty significant benefit.
Not a Cybertruck fan myself, but unless you are going to tow or take many long road trips, an EV truck will work great for anyone who can charge at home. And most people don't tow, or take long road trips, with their trucks.
And this matters why? It still fits in a garage and powered someone’s home for a week, while also being their vehicle. Stationary batteries couldn’t have driven themselves to the supercharger.
I am not a fan of the truck, but let’s make some sense here
No, but a stationary generator powered off a small volume of gasoline could have powered the house for the same amount of time, and then a gasoline powered car could've driven to the gas station to refill jerry cans. Both of which would cost substantially less than a cybertruck.
Yea but then you have to deal with gas which is nasty and stinky and noisy and polluting while having way less efficiency. A cybertruck charged with solar power is much more elegant and civilized.
Producing that enormous battery pack is nasty and stinky and noisy and polluting. It's just a cost that's paid upfront and the pollution is done in someone else's backyard.
Still a net pollution win. Pollution associated with industrial manufacturing of durable goods can be contained to specific areas and dealt with at scale by domain experts more easily than the diffuse pollution associated with burning fuel at point of use.
It's paid up front once. That battery is going to keep being a battery for the rest of its commercially viable lifespan. The gasoline just gets used up and you pollute over and over again to maintain having power.
A generator to power your house costs <$1k. A car that runs on gas costs <$5k, or if you want something that "matches" a cybertruck, ~$50k new. You can buy a lot of gasoline for those things before you get close to what a cybertruck costs. I don't care how "elegant" solar panels and a cybertruck might be if you're throwing money away to achieve it. (Ignoring that you can't both drive your truck and have your house powered from it simultaneously, and I don't think anyone in history has considered the cybertruck to be "elegant" - at least no one with eyes.)
European units (`Energy/100km`) work nicely here, lots of EVs are around `20 kWh/100km`, and most residential housing around here consumes less than `20kWh/day`, actually averaging `20kWh/day` would probably cover a well insulated house including heating (heatpump).
Yes, driving, compared to living, uses ridiculous amounts of energy.
With dimensional analysis you can cancel it all the way out until it's just Newtons, which is actually just the average drag force times some efficiency multiplier.
Requests per second, bytes per request, bytes per second should all match up very closely under dimensional analysis or something is drastically wrong ;)
Little's law is another related phenomenon that is super critical. Measuring things when the units don't match has bitten me more than once.
Work (energy) is force times distance. Since we're talking about energy divided by distance, it's actually just average force.
Actually newtons are just a constant factor (3.6) compared to Wh per km, since there are 3600 seconds in a hour while there are 1000 watts in a kilowatt. For example 144 Wh/km (or 14.4 kWh/100 km) would simply be 518 N. This also means that pushing along a Tesla on the highway at constant speed is roughly as hard as holding a 50 kg weight, giving you an intuitive sense of how "hard" it is to keep things moving.
Of course, in everyday life, since we buy electricity from our utilities in kWh rather than joules, it's more convenient to talk about kWh per km (or per mile).
Thanks. Was there a particular reason I'm not grasping for noting that on the comment you replied to? Seems like a comment that could be stated about any comment tackling about energy/distance.
Actually, I guess the comment you replied to was also not really clear in it's point, so I'll blame that guy for maybe diverging from the topic somewhat :)
(not trying to be negative, really! but my brain is a bit fuzzy from being sick, so thus feeling a bit dimwitted as I ponder comments)
For comparison my cargo ebike, which is not particularly efficient, consumes about 30 Wh/mi (0.03kWh/mi) in medium assist while transporting an adult and two kids.
Surprisingly enough, this makes acoustic bikes less carbon efficient per unit distance than electric ones, depending on the details of your diet. Of course, once the emissions are that low, this is more a curiosity than actionable insight (beyond the typical "less meat/dairy = lower emissions").
What's in that sandwich though? The Cybertruck using California non-renewable energy creates 162g of CO2 per mile. A sandwich full of lamb generates 666g. A sandwich of lentils does 40g.
Driving uses a lot of energy. It's wasteful if you aren't getting a good use out of it (of which just driving around to relax could me considered a good use, but of which some manager requiring RTO might not be).
>For daily driving duty, a car or small suv is much more efficient.
I have a lightning and it averages 0.5kwh/mile and my electricity price is $0.15/kwh, so it costs me $0.075/mile to drive. At current gas prices that's pretty much the same as a very efficient hybrid compact car (55mpg @ ~$4/gallon). If I had solar I could probably offset almost all of the lightning fuel cost based on where I live (sunny) but it's so cheap it's not worth it.
Do you mean "much more efficient" in places where electricity rates are significantly higher than the national average? Or only much more efficient when compared to when you're charging at charging stations?
I mean efficient in engineering terms, not economics. A cybertruck is not as efficient as a small SUV (model Y) which is not as efficient as a sedan (model 3).
> Another way to view this is that driving a cybertruck every day is quite wasteful (no different than driving a full size gas pickup every day). One recharge cycle in a cybertruck uses enough energy to power a typical home for 8 days, 130kWh.
Driving in general uses a lot of energy. It’s the physically moving a 1,000 kg or more object that takes a lot of energy. Orders of magnitude more than a few lights or a phone. Same with flying of course; also moving a heavy object.
The thing is that ICE vehicles are so inefficient to begin with, but a towed trailer needs the same amount of energy regardless of what is towing it.
Imagine a trailer takes 1 unit of energy to move, and ICE truck takes 5 units to move itself, and EV truck takes 1 unit to move itself.
The ICE truck towing it would go from 5 units to 6 units, reducing the range by 16%.
The EV truck would now go from 1 unit to 2 units, reducing the range by 50%.
So the better your efficiency, the worse you are at towing. Ideally EV trucks would have such a huge battery that even when the range is reduced by 50%, it is still as long as a gas truck's range, but modern battery technology is still too sucky to achieve this.
Are they really that inefficient? My 94 Roadmaster sedan gets 14ish mpg towing 7000lbs at 60mph, which works out to a bit over 300 miles on a tank. I figured your average gas truck would do at least that well, and they have larger tanks.
meanwhile, my impression is the whole poor towing narrative (while true) is a big part of what killed the ev truck when how many people use trucks in the way they could otherwise use a four-door sedan.
Not so sure about that one, boss. I can fully-load up a Ford Ranger to its 7500lb rated towing capacity and lose ~10% in fuel economy/range while you just dropped something like 30% (from the base power package range of ~240 miles, platinum package at 300 miles you're losing half if you only get 150 miles out.)
You're talking about the difference between towing and not towing per vehicle, not the difference in energy used towing between vehicles.
To get their equal ranges, a Ford Raptor would have a ~4 gallon tank. The fact that the cybertruck can go so far while not towing is the miracle. How far do you think you're going to get with 4 gallons?
Sure but even electrical power from natural gas or nuke plants is way cheaper than gasoline. Power plants employ massive economies of scale in generation. Even the cost of solar power has fallen dramaticially.
I think in general, a country trying to become industrious and eco-friendly by saving energy is like a person trying to become a millionaire by pinching pennies. Once you have optimized an economic system to eliminate the major cost centers, you're going to have extremely hard time improving it through further cost savings.
For example, If my expenditure roughly matches my income, I would need to eliminate 100% of my expenses just to make enough surplus to match doubling my income. Once I have managed the major cost centers (rent, insurance, etc.) it's not going to be worth my time to further optimize my expendature, the time would be better spent improving my income
For EVs, the fuel cost is already low. The next cost centers are like maintainance, tires, battery life. It would be better to attack these other cost centers or somehow pursue functionality that increases utility of the car.
Just FYI, in some areas of California, served by PG&E, electricity at peak times is $.58/kwh. When gas was around $4.00/gal, it was actually cheaper to use gas in that scenario. (I have a PHEV so I can do either.)
You can get a special account for home charging that lowers that rate to $.32/kwh, and at my work I can charge my car for $.28/kwh. At those rates, and with gas where it is now (typically $5.50 - $6.00/gal) it makes sense to use electric.
Yes it's ridicuous. Many of the charging stations here in PA charge 40c/kwh (my break-even is 30c/kwh). It's not profitable against gas even at these prices. Luckily residential rates are 13c/kwh but it's very inconvenient out here still.
Yeah I did the math for like 3-4$/gallon, and the efficiency of my car.
It's just ridiculous, there are no charging stations around here and it's like 50/50 chance they charge you some outragous price and have an annoying app or it's completely free to use.
I own a pretty typical phev sedan (Gen 2. Volt), and I use more electricity on my 20 mile commute than the rest of my power usage combined.
All cars just use a ton of power moving a lot of mass. It is actually impressive, it's like 100KW at full tilt. I think i saw someone do the math for how much power transfer you would need to get EV charging as fast as gasoline refuelling: It's in the megawatts.
The only way you could signifigantly reduce power usage of vehicles is to reduce mass dramaticially with a motorcyle or autocycle. The Aptera is an interesting autocycle design based on this line of reasoning, but we are also seeing the emergence of a lot of electric motorcycles.
Yep, having each individual person commuting in their own car is just not that efficient in general. Another data point that amazes me is the NYC subway uses 4-5 million kWh per day. Sounds like a lot until you realize that around 4 million people ride it every day, that’s about 1kWh, or maybe like 20 cents of electricity, per rider. A person commuting 35 miles in an EV would take about 10 kWh daily. They’re never going to beat the efficiency of public transportation.
Also regarding filling up an EV as fast as gasoline, there’s a company in China that has demonstrated charging from 20-80% in 5 minutes. They’re using 3MW charging.
It makes you realize why gasoline has been so popular for so long, you can stop for 5 minutes and dump 500 kWh of energy into your tank. Unfortunately most of that is wasted as heat during the combustion process.
The subway has some great efficiency gains because it's use is so narrow. It can only transport humans and small amounts of luggage, and only goes from point to point with no variability or any real use for transporting any of the materials those people need to survive. You're just dumping the costs off to other areas.
Also, if you factor in the construction, idk what the timeline to pay that off would be.
ok, so then you should also factor in the environmental destruction cause by building roads, the cost of the roads, the environmental cost of burning petrol, the environmental damage of extracting and refining petroleum, and so on.
>Also regarding filling up an EV as fast as gasoline, there’s a company in China that has demonstrated charging from 20-80% in 5 minutes. They’re using 3MW charging.
Yeah that's the exact post I saw. I didn't believe the video at the time but I suppose it's possible with enough battery paralellism and cooling.
In addition to the Aptera, I think there's a potential market for the enclosed 2-wheel vehicles also like the MonoRacer. The aerodynamic efficiency gains of enclosed cabin motorcycles is huge and greatly improves range, especially at highway speeds. I'd like to see something similar at a lower price range and produced in greater volume.
Yeah the Silverado EV has my attention but it's the same issue: if you, like me, actually use your truck for truck shit, an electric truck is a substantial, notable downgrade from ICE.
That said if you have a Mall Crawler who's heaviest loads are your monthly Costco run, an electric truck would probably be great for you. I still wouldn't recommend a Cybertruck though.
> Powershare allows you to draw power directly from your compatible Tesla vehicle to power your devices, your home or the grid.
> Powershare is currently available for all Cybertruck vehicles, and all new Model 3 and Model Y2 vehicles ordered on October 1, 2026 or later.
> To verify if your vehicle has Powershare, navigate to ‘Software’ > ‘Additional Vehicle Info’ > ‘Powershare Support: Enabled’ on your vehicle touchscreen.
The caveat is that Powershare is low wattage. You really need to pair it with a Powerwall and have an average draw less than the limited capability of the car to supply it.
To power a house directly from an EV, the main options now are the EV trucks -- Lightning, Silverado, Cybertruck all can have this ability, 240V 30A typically
I have a 2017 Tesla S100D. (Yay back when we had letters and numbers!)
As you probably know, there's a 12 volt battery in these cars. That battery is automatically recharged by the big 100kWh main battery.
Some years back, I bought a 12 volt, 2000W inverter and connected it to this 12 volt battery in the Tesla, ran a couple of extension cords, and powered our refrigerator, extra freezer, and a number of other things with it for many hours. The main battery percentage in the car showed an appropriate drop. This actually wasn't during an outage, it was contingency testing. We already have a natural gas, 3600 watt generator that connects to one of our panels and use that during (unfortunately frequent) outages.
In my 2017, it's a bit of work to get to that battery, but it's quite doable and seemingly quite safe. The obvious, very rough/estimated/simplistic math is the 100kWh main battery divided by 2kW is about 50 hours. Different factors would push that number up and down of course.
During an outage I tried the 12v and found it was unable to surge the freezer box. Now, the inverter I used wasn't great, but IIRC I read they didn't allow significant current off the cig lighter outlet.
I will definitely try this again. If it works, that'd be great.
Have an older Model Y too. It’s a real bummer that Tesla decided to give up being the bleeding edge tech company. No V2L/V2H, no Apple CarPlay, no longer range leaders in their category (though still cheapest per km range).
1) if you're permanently modifying your home or electric panel you're over $1k. (General Motors "Vehicle2House" is ~$10-20k for hardware + installation... an EXTREME investment unless you plan on regular "emergency" usage of it)
2) if you're buying some portable solar panel "battery boom box" you'll likely run out and the folding solar panel it comes with is more gimmick than reliable
3) if you're buying a "real" gas/diesel generator, you have to run it + change the oil every 6 months otherwise it might not start in your emergency situation
...just buy a thing that clips to your car battery and dangles out the front hood of your car!
You already maintain your car every 3-9 months, you already (should) have at least 1/2 tank of gas at all times (especially in a weather / outage situation), you can generally idle your car for at least 2 days off a tank of gas in an emergency, and if this thing can charge your phone/battery packs, keep your fridge running (kindof?), and run a small space heater overnight...
It makes soooo much more sense to buy a $500-$1000 emergency accessory that piggybacks off the car you already maintain than trying to stand up a whole extra distribution mechanism for "survival-ish power, maybe 1-2 times over 3-4 years".
I don't think the residential power generator is needed anymore if you have an electric car.
As soon as we got the adapter for our Ioniq 5, I sold generator to a neighbor. The car will run what we need for four days, which is longer than the generator and five gallon can of gas is going to last.
Despite the dealer saying the used one I bought supported it, it turned out to not be available in the trim I got. My fault obviously for believing something a car dealer said.
This thread is first time I hear about V2H. (I don’t have any car yet, electric or otherwise.)
It sounds amazing. Only thing I wonder if it can even be set up so that it will be like an Uninterruptible Power Supply. So that when there is a blackout, the V2H supplies all the power without any interruption.
I have several computers but no UPS yet. Imagine if I could buy an electric car and when I am not using it, my car is UPS for my whole house including my computers! :D
> It sounds amazing. Only thing I wonder if it can even be set up so that it will be like an Uninterruptible Power Supply. So that when there is a blackout, the V2H supplies all the power without any interruption.
That's the point of V2H (or a residential battery, which it emulates). Although you still want a UPS for computers: I doubt "without any interruption" is at the scale of a UPS, and possibly not at the scale a desktop computer will require. Notably it depends how the grids cuts off, if it cuts off in one shot (like throwing the breaker) the failover should be almost instantaneous, but if it fluctuates before failing the battery might need a lot longer to engage.
Will the setup outlive the car? Or will I have to replace it when I buy a new EV?
$10k amortized over 20 to 30 years is not too bad. But if I buy my first EV and only keep it for 5 to 8 years before replacing it with a different EV then I’m less happy if I also have to replace all of the additional equipment that soon.
V2L will also do the trick, although it's more annoying.
If power loss is a regular event you probably want V2H, but if it's just a remote fear or something that happens once every 5~10 then V2L and a few extension cords will do.
I camped in a yurt in rural Maine last fall on a motorbiking trip. Needed to keep my phone charged for nav; woke up to find it hadn't charged all the way.
Went looking for the campground host and bumped into another camper, who was pissed the power went out. "Don't worry though - if you need to charge something, you can put it in my truck."
Ended up on a phone charging expedition that landed me in a local library for the first time since I was a child.
Came back and met the host: "Sorry about the power last night - some dumbass tried to charge his truck and tripped the breaker to the whole campground."
Charging a truck does that? What's that campground going to do with someone plugs in their 50A 43 foot-long tour bus RV?
(I'm sure there's more to the story, and the details aren't important, but if charging a vehicle is tripping breakers for the whole campground there's something wrong.)
Yeah, probably not your typical campground, now that you mention that detail. Still, something seems off, but here I go down a rabbit hole that isn't important to the original comment.
If pulling 24 amps through a TT-30 or 40 amps through a 14-50 trips a breaker, then it's the host's fault for the campground having a shoddy electrical system, not the truck driver's fault.
Approximately zero campgrounds have the capacity to charge more than one EV. They are sized for intermittent loads, just because it uses a 14-50 does not mean it is intended to support 80% steady draw.
Is that not the point of a 14-50 socket? To say that you can draw 50 amps? If you can't supply 50 amps without tripping a breaker, don't install a 50 amp socket.
At the risk of saying something obvious, the socket and the breaker are sized for the peak load, not for average load. A typical home might have 300-400 amps if you total up all the breakers even though the mains are 200A or even 100A.
Also, a bog standard 14-50 is likely not suited for 80% steady EV usage anyway. They make EV-rated 14-50s now because people keep melting the older ones. And that happens even though the vast majority of chargers won't draw more than 32A on a 14-50 due to the historical popularity of using 40A breakers for a 14-50 receptacle.
Lol in what world? Campgrounds routinely have next to no funding, if they even have power pedestals I wouldn't expect them to be wired for anything more than an RV.
The entire reason we have so many different types of receptacles is so to keep you from plugging in something that the circuit can't handle. They shouldn't be giving people 14-50's if they don't have 50A peak and 40A continuous available. (There is a code exception to only allow 40A peak/32A continuous to a 14-50, but that's all most portable EV chargers draw anyway, so I doubt it even met that. And TT-30 offers no such exception at all.)
Since the whole campground went dark, presumably it was the main breaker. The branch circuit must be sized to the outlet type, but the total rating of all branch circuits usually exceeds the main breaker rating.
That would be a reasonable explanation if most of the campsites had people charging EVs at their max individual current, but it sounded like just one did.
I installed a Peak Design Qi charger for the trip. Turns out their charger and their phone case weren't electrically compatible. I was pretty mad about it.
Battery's not super useful if you want to put the phone on your handlebars while riding. Screen is a lot more helpful than audio cues. If you can only charge when parked, it's either charge from a battery and have to top up the battery later, or just charge the phone directly.
The friend I did the trip with was on nav for the first part of the trip, but he had to turn back early for family stuff.
This is nothing specific to the CyberTruck; 123 kWh is a lot of battery but a better use would be to add home solar and then you're completely self-sufficient in addition to saving tons of money.
Of course there are two issues that are completely solveable if we had reasonable governance:
1. Adopting an Australia-style solar installation regulation and permitting scheme, which is literally 1/5th tho cost of the US method, and pays their tradespeolpe higher salaries than US workers get
2. Allowing EVs to feed back into the grid. This is something that naysayers would never be useful because nobody would ever want to waste battery cycles on their home. Which of course has always been nonsense. Don't buy EVs without this basic capability, IMHO.
That's entirely due to the US scheme, where utilities have ensured that it won't make sense nearly everywhere. Which is then combined with the asinine permitting situation in the US, where every city and county does something on their own without any order or sense.
This combines to ensure that any solar installer will do lots of very expensive things: 1) have a large sales force to close the sale, which last I looked accounted for 30%-40% of the overall cost of solar in the US, 2) roll out trucks many different times during the planning and install, each costing lots of money, 3) never have to compete with a bunch of other hyper-competitive installers and find efficiencies like batching installs together in the same general area.
There are also massively high solar PV tariffs in the US, more than tripling the cost of the panels, but that's not even that big compared to the rest of the needless inefficiency in the system.
Yeah if you have to tow long distances it's not an ideal choice. Under normal use I get 250-350 miles (lower end for high speed cruising, higher for surface roads), which has been plenty. And at 50K (brand new) it was cheaper than any of the comparable gas versions. The unexpected bonus was that it hasn't depreciated much at all in the last few years.
Battery cost per kwh is way cheaper for buying them in a car than a power wall or similar system for many vehicles.
For years Tesla didn't let you know use the battery in the car this way because they made money selling power walls. Then they added the inverter as part of selling that thing.
Multiple other cars have it and someone now sells an inverter that works on old teslas too
That $30k car could be an EV, too, and be part of the backup power system.
In Australia, $10k would buy not only a ton of solar panels but also batteries. The US has decided to make solar and batteries at the home super expensive, unnecessarily.
What you've shown is that there is a crossover where a gas car + generator beats an electric car.
That doesn't mean electric cars shouldn't be considered as power backup, or that buying a nice electric car vs a nice gas car doesn't come with the added benefit of "Don't need a 10k generator anymore".
> That doesn't mean electric cars shouldn't be considered as power backup, or that buying a nice electric car vs a nice gas car doesn't come with the added benefit of "Don't need a 10k generator anymore".
From redundancy perspective, a genset + car is hands down a better combo. A functional ICE car is cheaper and goes everywhere without any trip planning around charging stations, which is another plus.
If cost is your only factor yes. But the vast majority of people pick cars they like, and EV's are great. No need to dog on them needlessly. The trip planning thing is super overblown. Now 2 years into my first EV, going to a charger that's not my house _at all_ is quite rare - couple times a year; even when I travel Portland to Seattle, I don't have to stop on the way such that outside Olympia, I don't even know where the charge stations are. And that's the worst it'll ever be.
> and EV's are great. No need to dog on them needlessly. The trip planning thing is super overblown.
I never said EV is not great and it is nice that it is working out for you, but facts are facts. Also, while EV footprint is growing around the globe, there is wide vast world beyond USA where charging issue is still true (and the repair shops).
There's a vast world in the US where charging is still an issue. I live in an apartment in a major city with no garage or parking lot, so owning an EV would be very difficult, since there's no way to charge residentially. Or if you're on call, in a rural area, where charging at home might not leave you with enough charge to drive across the county without notice.
ICE cars are barely cheaper, almost never over any span of time due to cost of ownership, and there's no trip planning around charging. It's clear you've never done a road trip in a Tesla. Almost all Tesla owners have had ICE cars first, not sure who you're trying to convince here with your lies.
I mean presenting one set of tradeoffs just shows that there are tradeoffs.
If you're looking at two $55,000 cars, and one has power interconnect and one does not, it's not like adding a $1000-$10,000 generator on top is somehow immediately better unless you're adding in factors that make it better (like buying a cheaper car). There's 3 or 4 superchargers within a few miles of my house, and every time I've lost power I could easily go charge my car so I never worried about that.
Not everyone lives in that situation or has the same "one or two days without local power but chargers still work" threat model. It just so happens that's been the biggest actual, real, problem that my car could have fixed for me.
Carmax has used 2025 SEL Ioniq 5's with 10-15k miles for 33k; that's practically new. Other than the ICCU issue, probably the best electric deal rn? 84kwh battery, I've can drive it Portland to Seattle on 2/3 of a charge.
My generator was $1000 and can power my entire house (including server rack). If I bought it used it would’ve been $500. I can trivially store 2 weeks worth of gasoline (and I do, constantly) and as long as somewhere within 700km of my house has gasoline I can get there, refill, and get home. I own 6 gas cars and they total less than $33k. My daily I paid $2500 for and average 6L/100km. (All CAD) If you start taking used cars into account the math goes waaaaaay towards gasoline car + generator.
I don't think there's a pure cost argument that favors EV's in this scenario. I think instead the argument is, EV's are relatively affordable now and have other benefits. For context, the Ioniq 5 is rated Edmund's _best_ EV SUV (afaik, most popular overall category). So e.g. this isn't an example of a crappy one to make na argument (I've owned it for 2 years, my first EV, its v. impressive).
So for someone who wants an EV (for the convenience, environment, or performance reasons), I think the statement is you can e.g. do so fairly affordably and also get free generator with it. Its a nice perk imo.
Does this also factor in operating costs of the vehicle? Especially considering gasoline at $4-7/gallon?
Then there’s also the potential scenario of “buyer prefers an EV anyway.”
In my case I’m currently driving a ~10 year old conventional gasoline vehicle that I purchased new, and I plan to keep driving it for roughly another 7-10 years. Given the current automotive product lineups out there I can’t think of a scenario where my next car will involve gasoline regardless of my desire for a backup power source at home.
> Does this also factor in operating costs of the vehicle? Especially considering gasoline at $4-7/gallon?
Depends on the vehicle of course. But for me at least, my 5-speed Civic for $2500 is way cheaper over its expected lifespan than a $7000 Nissan Leaf (and the Civic is way more flexible, since it can actually go more than 100km every 6 hours in the winter). At $1.50/L and 6L/100km, I can drive about 50,000km before I spend more on gasoline than the price difference between the two. The actual breakeven math (assuming 21kWh/100km) is closer to about 65,000km when factoring in electricity at ~$0.12/kWh. Oil changes are negligible (I do my own maintenance and oil changes), and a used Leaf is going to have just as many problems (if not more) with "the rest of the car" as a gas car (suspension, steering, brakes, tires, electrics, interior components, not to mention battery pack services).
If you buy a nicer EV than the break even point goes even further out. At least where I am, the EV equivalent of any gasoline car has a breakeven point of at least 50k km driven, usually more.
> Then there’s also the potential scenario of “buyer prefers an EV anyway.”
Entirely fair, but I'd still buy a generator and an EV. Because coupling your house power to your car just seems like a bad idea (to rely on it, at least; if you live somewhere that you never need to rely on off-grid power, then who really cares). For instance, my house has a sump pump that must run every ~hour or my basement will flood, and during storms that gets down to about 20 minutes. If my area doesn't have power, then I can't charge an EV anywhere nearby, and if I'm powering the house off the EV, how am I going to recharge it without my basement flooding?
I think you’re a huge outlier here. The median person is not doing their own maintenance and oil changes. $2,500 Civic that runs reliably is a meaningless data point. I might as well say I found 128GB of DDR5 RAM at an estate sale for $20.
50km-75km break-even is not a whole lot of kilometers.
You can compare a used first gen leaf’s poor range but in a short amount of time from now the bulk of the used EV market is going to be Teslas and Ioniq 5s that charge fast, are equipped with heat pumps, and get plenty of range.
Not everyone has a sump pump that needs to run every hour. Not everyone even has a basement. If we keep throwing out qualifiers we end up with a scenario that is not relevant to many people.
Out of curiosity, what do you normally do about the gasoline? I ask because I had a crappy little generator, and it seemed like my most common issue was old gas in the thing. Wasn’t a big deal or anything, just curious… stabil and run them regularly whether you need it or not?
Fortunately there's a couple (literally 2) gas stations near me that sell ethanol-free 91 octane gas, which has a shelf life of ~1 year. Sta-bil in theory extends that substantially longer. My solution is Sta-bil in the E0 gas, which gets used throughout the year for small engines (lawn mower, snowblower, pressure washer) and the generator if needed. I power up the generator once a month to make sure its battery stays charged and fuel keeps flowing (probably overkill). My power goes out 2-3 times a year, so that combined with the small engine stuff is enough to cycle through the gas in ~1 year, but if it isn't, I'll either burn it in the generator or just run it in one of my cars.
If you live in an area where you can only get ethanol gas, then you definitely don't want it sitting more than 6 months, even with Sta-bil (in my experience). So that means yeah, you gotta cycle through the generator's tank twice a year, which if you live in an area with reliable power, means spending more money than you need to on gas and oil. Also, keep all containers (including fuel tanks) as full as possible, to minimize the amount of air in the container, to minimize the amount of moisture the ethanol can suck out of the air.
The cost of my 2015 Subaru Forester is apparently around 7k. A gas powered generator is 2-3k (and can be refilled with quick trips to the nearest usable gas station) and you can also pair it with a solar-powered one with panels for 3k.
That puts the total setup price to about 10% of a CT-Energy station.
And I could buy a hybrid that's only a few years old for 20k? I mean, it's still a magnitude less than the CT which is what I'm responding to. The idea that the CT miraculously saved a certain family from disaster and was thus worth the 100k investment is just silly.
I am confused why you think I’m defending the Cybertruck, I’m saying that a used ~$20k EV plus the equipment needed to hook it up to your house would probably satisfy most people’s desire for a generator.
Personally I never really understood the value of a generator in the first place but that’s just my opinion.
I have a champion tri-fuel that cost < $1k which runs essentially my whole house. It's plumbed into my natural gas so as long as that is up (it has never gone out), I don't even have to refill it.
I read somewhere that it's a big deal if a natural gas network runs out of gas because then air can get into the system. That can lead to explosions, so they have to systematically purge the entire network.
We have the same. $2K generator, while house transfer switch, natural gas hookup. Guess we'll never have a power failure again, since we just got a new generator.
See, your problem is assuming that the EV is 80-100K. Or that the ICE car is 30K. This is a contrived comparison. An average new car is well over 30K. And I bought a brand new Lightning for 50K. Being able to use 131kWh of battery for things other than driving is a pleasant bonus, and I prefer it to having a gas generator I have to keep maintained and store fuel for.
You an drive almost every EV that has that feature too.
Or rather, you can take half of the difference in price and install some proper PV + battery system in your house that can be used when there's isn't a catastrophe too.
Sounds like you're desperately searching for a problem where a specific make and model of a car can fit as a solution. That doesn't make the car any better than it is.
It is an emergency. I'll compromise in an emergency. My fridge can sit unpowered for a couple hours while I'm driving, and that is all I need to drive anyway.
If there is a major outage most bosses understand that you won't be working normally because you need to deal with the emergency.
The amount of money you spent on a cybertruck could’ve instead been spent on a generator, gasoline for the generator, and a car to go buy gasoline for the generator. Or, battery packs & solar panels, and a generator, and gasoline for the generator, and a car to go buy gasoline for the generator. That car could even be an EV, just a much more efficient one.
I don't think anyone buys a cybertruck for this ability. But if you have one this is a nice bonus and the additions too use it this was are less than a generator
The power being delivered on wheels that go with you is the whole point. A permanently affixed generator doesn't help get power out into the middle of the field when I need to do things like weld farm equipment. There are plenty of solutions out there, but the power source and truck carrying the tools being one and the same would be quite attractive if the aforementioned problems were solved.
Exactly why the power source being the truck I already own anyway is far more appealing, at least it would be if the aforementioned problems were solved. Special tools come with special costs that don't really make sense most of the time.
This is obviously not the primary reason to get a Telsa. But a full home generator will run you $15k to buy and install where i live, and a whole bunch of hassle to install with permits. I don't have one because my power doesn't go out that much. But if i'm otherwise on the fence about a vehicle, I would absolutely want this as a feature.
Maybe a generator sized to run a regular home in perpetuity, but I bet it's much, much less than that to have an electrician install a GenerLink and to buy a regular portable generator just powerful enough to run your fridge and freezer.
In our area, when a storm hit, the roads washed out, so the generators ran out of propane. Then the local propane companies ran out of delivery truck capacity because of the demand surge. Finally, the regional distributors ran out of propane.
Our solar panels kept the fridge running, but we were heating the house with a wood stove (it was very cloudy, so we were getting maybe an hour of sun a day). If we had bidirectional house charging, we could have had warm showers + used the heat pump: We would have been able to fast-charge the car at 100-200kw in town. The house can limp through 20-30 hours on ~ 25kwh, so the charger would charge the house at a few days per hour, including losses from driving to and from town + round tripping through the battery, and also running the house heat pump.
None of the other people around here stayed online. Some propane-dependent people had no electricity for > 2 weeks (with rationing, they managed to keep their generators online for about a week, and PG&E took three weeks to fix their lines).
This was in the outskirts of Silicon Valley, so better-than-puerto-rico infrastructure, but only just.
This is a total failure/incompetence of multiple utility institutions that we all pay for and depend on. An electric company that does not have the capacity to respond quickly to natural disasters and propane delivery infrastructure that doesn't have the reserves to weather such an event. Even a day without electricity should be unacceptable in a modern, functional society. How do we tolerate 2 weeks? I bet the CEOs of these companies are not going without electricity for 2 weeks.
We are far away from, but slowly approaching, Mad Max levels of institutional failure, and everyone seems to treat it as normal and unavoidable.
> This is a total failure/incompetence of multiple utility institutions that we all pay for and depend on. Even a day without electricity should be unacceptable in a modern, functional society.
Like the storm surge walls at Fukushima, all infrastructure is designed with a certain size of storm or event in mind based on historical averages and outliers.
Climate change is throwing all that to shit.
Your comment says plain and clear you’ve never lived through a “once in 100 years” level event more than once in a decade, and you don’t realize how much it would cost to upgrade what we’ve spent ~100 years building.
It’s trillions, just to get started.
I also wonder if you’d be fine with increasing taxes to pay for all that, or if you already complain about “high taxes”
You forgot "higher maintenance" that goes along with seldom-used things that run on gas. That gas doesn't drain itself, and if you don't do that, well, Amazon has carbs for Honda generators for $30. For something I might use once a year. No, thanks.
A friend who was in the Marines bought this point up along with another good one. (Bit of paraphrasing here) "It's the only bullet proof vehicle that's stock and acts like a giant battery in a blackout. As ugly as it is, it offers a lot of personal protection that people actually want and NEED depending on who they are and where they live. There are a lot of wealthy people who are buying them just for the fact that it's bullet proof."
It's worth noting that there are several other (nearly objectively better) EVs on the market with larger battery capacity than the CT and have V2H/Powershare tech.
> They may be ugly, but the emergency prepper in me always wanted one after hearing that story
If all you're after is the V2L feature, you can get it for much cheaper: for 16% of the price of a Cybertruck, you can get 86% of the battery capacity (about 8 powerwalls) by buying a used Fisker Ocean Extreme with a 107kWh battery, vs. the cybertruck's 123kWh
If you live in a sunny area, it's much cheaper to install solar with a hybrid inverter (like a Sol-Ark) with some batteries, and a generator for the extended outages. The cybertruck's battery is 123 kwh, whereas a gallon of gas contains approx 33 kwh of energy. A mere 5 gallon container of gas is more energy than the entire cybertruck.
The ford home integration setup never really worked as advertised. The idea is that if the home power fails, the truck will output high voltage DC to an inverter that powers the house. No owners have got this failing over reliably.
Most people just plug an extension cord into the onboard inverter. You have to manually flip it on and plug it in, but 240V30A is plenty for an emergency. Doing it this way isn't any different from any other vehicle with an onboard inverter though.
It's completely illegal unless your home has a "transfer switch" (manual or automatic) installed for this purpose - and if you're plugged into the generator side of a transfer switch, then you can't charge the truck, only discharge it. There are probably modules designed for solar power that allow two-way transfer safely.
On the other hand there are no tricky rules for an electric truck to have extra power outlets in it.
Bingo. Unsurprisingly, the ford system is basically an off the shelf solar system minus the panels and with a very tiny battery to kickstart the system.
The whole GP is irrelevant to the article regardless. Point being, what does it matter that the cybertruck has this feature when it's a not unique and b irrelevant to why it failed.
The whole comment comes across as an AI agent that is lacking severe human context by posting a complete non-sequitur, regardless if it is actually an agent or not.
Yeah sorry - that's an overly negative take. It's just odd to me the TOP comment on a post about the cybertruck winding down is a random anecdote about it's battery backup capabilities, lol.
I know its been a few years, but the Cybertruck has been an epic disaster.
Cybertruck was announced first. Then Ford _released_ the F150 Lightning, including the ability to operate as a backup battery for a house. And a dozen or so months later, Cybertruck comes out at a much higher price than F150 Lightning ever was.
Has it? It was the R&D car and really cut the costs of developing the robotaxi that they're going all-in on. 48v wiring, ethernet hub, giant casting tech, and a lot more.
This works for the wealthy that can afford it, but would it be better to be press for a better grid for everyone instead? It amazes me how individualistic and wasteful the usa is.
Interesting, This reminds me a V2V energy transportation. There was a study in the past to investigate how could it be designed in the public transportation:
Currently in pilot on a small fleet of electric trucks in Australia (actual trucks - prime movers for road trains) - large standard swappable battery packs that can be removed and replaced with a fork lift.
I used to have an inverter I installed in my vehicle, mainly to run powertools, and brew hot cocoa during stargazing events. During the great North American power outage in the early 2000's, I ran an extension cord into the house and ran some basic stuff off it (I recall us being the only ones around who could watch TV to keep up with the news). It was only 1200W (though had an extra deep cycle battery hooked up), but helped enough for a few vitals.
What appliances exactly did the house have? And does it last couple of days even for appliances with compressors and heating coils? If it did that then thats pretty impressive! And your friend is a genius
may I ask why would it not be more sensible to have solar panels, battery and generators? Is that not a viable project?
I'm consodering that for myself, never thought on a cybertruck
If that’s the only thing you care about you can DIY (or buy dedicated battery backup systems) with 10x more capacity for the same price. With heavier but cheaper Na-ion batteries in the horizon near future backup systems will be even better
Ford did the same thing, but that truck was built during the height of parts shortages.
Ford came in and bought up all of the parts from our suppliers and I had to qual random suppliers for weeks. Even at the time, I was thinking there is too much disparity and this will haunt us for years.
We were a bit more agile and I made a lot of kernel hacks to compensate.
Ford didn’t fare better for all their choices. Recalls galore. Honestly, they made my life hell so fuck em.
On to the truck, they had a proprietary charger and power wall solution but it could run the house for days.
The requirements for a home battery are vastly different than for a vehicle. For home, size and weight matter much less and capacity and discharge matter much more. Vehicle batteries would nearly always be the wrong solution to power a home.
The F150 hybrid is/was also supposed to be really good for this, and when the battery ran down, the engine would switch on and recharge it. So, you were not dependent on a super charger. All you needed is a working gas station. (This is based on an old video from Alex on Autos). So, you could buy a vehicle that is both cheaper and doesn't look like a dumpster and still be able to do this.
Battery capacity is just one side of the equation. You also need a strong output capacity otherwise you won't much. Also if you are to inject current in your network like that, then you need at least a source inverter to isolate yourself from the grid, otherwise it would most likely be illegal and very dangerous for technicians and neighbors. Also
Are the battery compartments water proof? We got hit by a hurricane a few years ago, and a few nearby teslas caught on fire from the floodwaters, torching people's houses.
that is not the only car who can reverse-charge the house. All EVs are theoretically capable of it, given proper power switching algorithm. (the hardware is already there, just how the four switches open/close to reverse the energy flowing direction.)
This is a feature on many new electric vehicles (such as the Kia EV 9). The obstacle is often the power company, which may require modifying your system to enable this.
Can you do this with other normal EVs? I assume they'd have lower capacity, but just getting some power for your fridge, wifi, and chargers might be worth.
Sort of. With my Kia EV9 I can use a V2L adapter to run an extension cord for essential items in my home. I understand in other markets there is a V2H connector so you can connect it to your home mains power but I don’t think it’s available in the US
Yes, I used mine in July 2024 to power my fridge and a couple of items when I lost power in Texas. Unfortunately the V2H requires a setup that I don't have.
In theory, yes, but they need to have the hardware/firmware to do it. Pretty sure most of the full-size electric trucks do so, but not sure about any of the smaller crossover EVs.
You also need to have the house setup to run off a generator. You don't want the truck power feeding back into the grid. IIRC, that's usually done with a big switch near the main panel.
No, you can't even do it with most other Teslas. Current models will give you 20A of 120V out from the battery, but most don't have an inverter big enough.
There is a model of Ford Lightning that has power sharing and now that resale values are way down it just might be a cost effective home battery that you can drive around during non-emergencies....
The power sharing in the lightning requires a discontinued home charger and several thousand in extra inverters and other home infrastructure to do the power share trick.
You can also just plug into the 30A240V bed plug and use the onboard inverter on the lightning or powerboost hybrid f150 with less headache.
In theory, it requires ONLY firmware changes. V2G/V2H works by establishing a "fast charging session" that directly connects the inverter to the high-voltage bus. And then it just siphons off the energy from the battery instead of charging it.
Car makers are reluctant to support this. In case of Tesla because of market segmentation.
It’s unclear to me how a vehicle battery can be 9-10x the size of a house battery, be used as a house battery, include an highway safe cabin, motors and wheels and only cost 4x what a single home battery costs. Oh, and at least Kia rates their battery warranty based on miles driven, so using it as a home battery does not impact any 10-year capacity guarantees.
AI tells me they are completely different though, so I must be missing something.
Permitting in California more than doubles the installation cost of home batteries + PG&E gets to screw with you if you buy one.
Propane generators here have the same problem.
That still doesn't explain the price gap. You can literally just get a V2H EV and use it instead of a home battery (or, you could if the ecosystem was more mature).
Powerwall is a scammy product. WAY too expensive for the storage it provides.
---
So the summary is: Cybertruck is using a different battery chemistry, Powerwall is a scam.
(I mean - to be clear, the Cybertruck is also a scam, but it's a different kind of scam not directly related to the battery capacity, since it's hauling around a 123kWh NCMA battery pack)
I think "recycling" cybertrucks in this manner, basically to reuse their batteries, may give them a more practical afterlife then when they were a truck.
Very few, I would imagine. Pricing is just divorced from reality (as in, the point where you'd be able to successfully sell one in a reasonable amount of time), the "I know what I have" stubbornness that is pervasive among a certain type of seller to their own detriment. Pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if this specific car basically self selects for that type of person.
It's a cool car. I'm glad it exists. All SUVs look almost identical. I'm glad it was different, not for everyone but it was an attempt to make something innovative in a very stale market.
It's exhausting reading these kinds of articles from a tech publication none the less. It's just so negative. Here is a summary of paragraphs:
Cybertruck is ceasing production
Here's a mean tweet from some X account with 2,649 followers: "Fuck that shitbox"
> They may be ugly, but the emergency prepper in me always wanted one after hearing that story.
The cybertruck is $70k, which in a 14-day power outage is $5000 a day.
There are cheaper options to weather such a storm. Like flying first class to New York, getting a limo to the Central Park Ritz-Carlton and spending 14 days being waited on hand and foot.
I agree that it’s cool, but is it practical? If your goal is to power your house, you can buy a whole-house backup generator for about 1/12th of the cost of a cybertruck.
A cyber truck as a prepper rig is laughable. EV's do a lot of things well, but if it's a prepper rig, you'd need to have a generator and the fuel set aside to charge it. You can't assume that there will be power near by. If there is power, you can't assume that you will have access to one of the relatively few chargers available.
You can get a generator that will get the job done for under 1000 bucks and you can store diesel or propane to get the job done.
That's before we factor in the likelyhood needing to travel quite a distance (and assume there is no access to grid power), and that you won't have any of the cybertruck defeating issues like heavy rains or standing water that might void it's warranty and fry it's electronics.
A prepper rig is a mechanical diesel that can be roll started or hand cranked without batteries, has no electronics to get fried except the radio, and can burn almost any combustible fuel source on hand. Slap a 200 Gallon transfer tank on the back and keep it full and you can drive across the country without fueling up. And if you also have that diesel generator to power your house, you've got a years worth of fuel for that generator.
You can get all that done for around 25k USD, so, not sure how a cyber truck even enters the conversation.
A real pepper would want a car that runs on gas with a carburated engine and is also a common car. Not a niche one off that requires fussy infrastructure just to refuel.
What are the chances that the supercharger station even has power after a hurricane? You want something that is already on the property. I've had roads blocked by fallen trees for days after a windstorm event.
If you are concerned about riding through a 14 day+ event you need a generator. Even a fully off-grid solar / wind setup could be compromised in these kinds of storms. I've seen entire roofs cleaned off by a <100mph storm. Anything not bolted down to a concrete slab cannot be depended on.
Generally a propane generator is a wiser, more reliable backup option. Propane doesn't go bad, and in disaster scenarios often the sun isn't shining or your solar panels could be damaged. Solar + battery is a good system when the weather is good and everything is going well, but for a fallback system a propane generator can't be beat.
Yeah, this is where I landed, too. Except propane bottles only get me about 3-4 hours per bottle and it's pricey. It ran $50 for one day of AC during the last outage.
I just bought a kit to convert to natural gas though. Most people who've done it are happy to not change bottles all the time. It won't help after an earthquake but the regular PSPS outages I get make natural gas a better fit for the moment.
Not everyone lives somewhere with natural gas service, and gas service could also go out in some types of disasters.
It’s possible to get larger propane tanks and refill them more cheaply (rather than exchanging expensive grill tanks at the store). Some hardware stores will refill tanks directly. You can even get very large tanks (refilled by a truck that comes to your house) if you want weeks of power on tap. But this is probably overkill for most, unless you’re very remote.
I tried that but services want regular deliveries and aren't interested in refilling emergency tanks. And a tank large enough for decent power backup will be hard to move.
Ah, ok. They make auto-change regulators that allow you to hook up two tanks, and two 30-60lb cylinders should last quite a while. But if you have natural gas service and aren’t in an earthquake or hurricane zone then that’s probably better.
Im not sure AC is the sort of thing most people are thinking about needing power for in an emergency or disaster scenario, its one of the most power hungry things you can use.
As a person in the deep south where summer temps are over 100F and RH is in the 80s, having a generator powered window unit in our smallest room is more necessary than even the fridge. Thankfully the window units only pull 400-500w or so, so even a small dual-fuel running propane would run all day on a 20lb tank.
This is a common enough occurrence in rural Louisiana, at least. And I think almost everyone I know has a 200gal or larger propane tank in their yard, specifically for multiday outages. My father-in-law doesn't have a single propane appliance, but he does have a 250gal tank, for his generac.
We don't we have a single 100lb tank, but that will run the little AC for 3 or 4 days.
During the last outage my neighbor had to leave his house because of the temperature. He had a generator running for days (off of the natural gas line) so I thought he was fine, but his old AC wouldn't start so he texted me as he was leaving to stay at a hotel.
This is important enough to me that I researched slow start AC units ~8 years ago when replacing my AC. I learned that almost any heat pump will do, so that's what I have.
In large areas of the US if your AC goes out during the summer you can be dead within a day or two. There's many deaths of elderly people annually when their AC failed and they didn't have the mobility to leave for a cooling center before they passed out.
It's not so much the temperature per se, it's the fact modern houses are designed around AC and American houses in particular are basically giant wooden garden sheds.
In a traditional house with thick brick/stone walls and large roof overhangs you'd be uncomfortable but a lot less likely to die
It would be smart (assuming a properly insulated and air sealed house--which to your point is uncommon in the US) to build an insulated room with a dedicated hvac zone in the center of the basement or somewhere similar that is basically your "safe room" for such a situation. Would not take much to cool it and has the advantage of being maximally distant from the exterior walls to in case you are worried about radioactive fallout ;)
For most people their car would work fine, of course not everyone does drive. Sometimes cities will open "cooling centers" (school gyms, event venues, etc.) for those cases.
It takes a large amount of fuel to keep a car cool (or warm) compared to a properly insulated interior room in a properly insulated house. Cars have almost no thermal insulation to speak of, just sound deadening material, and they're made of thermally conductive materials.
We got a 500 gal propane tank. Get it topped off every so often, can power two large portables and one built in generator for longer than we've ever needed, even close to it.
I'm looking into getting a large EV so I can move off of a propane generator. A generator needs service, it will cut power for 5-10 seconds while it starts up (so your PCs and whatnot will power cycle), and it's loud.
Always a good idea to have a UPS, even if you don’t have a generator, to protect your home computers from transient outages, power flickers, or grid voltage fluctuations.
I live off grid and only have solar because it was cheaper than the wire.
Also, I built it myself so the labor costs aren't included but I am about $8k into a system (4kw of panels, 6kw inverter, 15kwH battery).
I personally wouldn't be able to make vehicle cheaper than having no grid tie. I get that the costs are different once you include labor. Also I am on 40acres so the panel set could be ground mounted.
But to make something commensurable with a propane home-powering generator seems a lot more do-able.
Won't an EV have maintenance costs too? And cost a lot more than a propane generator? And take time to switch over to supply electricity to your house?
The quiter part makes sense, but there are a lot more practical solutions to that too.
You (probably) need a car any way. So the choice isn't between an EV or a propane generator - it's between an EV, or (propane generator and a car). With V2H and something like a power wall or other battery backup, when the power goes out you would still have a few hours at normal usage where you can go and plug your car in.
I'm running an EG4 system with a decent amount of battery storage. I have a generator port on it that makes it easy to plug in a portable generator to assist the PV and charge the battery. It's really easy for me to roll my generator over and run it a few hours a day to supplement the solar. Even a cheap 5kW generator is plenty because it doesn't need to power the house, just provide a continuous charge to the batteries.
A diesel generator would definitely be better on paper, but the costs involved are much higher as those are generally a permanent install. A gasoline generator requires much more maintenance around fuel and the carburetor as gasoline goes bad over time and modern gas/petrol with ethanol in it sucks up water from the air. A propane generator, while it is a bit more annoying to refuel, especially if you upgrade to larger tanks, is perfectly happy to sit for 6-12 months unused and then start right up on the tank of fuel that's been sitting next to it for that time period.
A propane generator is a temporary solution but likely is good enough for most folks who just need to keep the fridge cold and maybe charge cell phones. It's not going to be able to run your house AC or anything, though.
If you need to worry about such extended outages, why not just do the normal thing and install propane tanks, a stationary generator, and a transfer switch?
You can buy the batteries installed at your home, charged during the day with solar or night with a small ICE generator. That plus a real same-class truck still costs considerably less than a CT.
my jelly neighbor story is that when our neighbors replaced their ice truck with a cybertruck, a calm descended on our block. iso of getting woken up by the rumble of that damn thing when they started it, they just zoomed off, silently. its the first time i internalized that electric vehicles are inherently better than ice. more human.
Yes, drain your car to power your house, so in an extended outage your house will be out of power and you will be stranded. Risk management, people. You don’t know if power will go out in even more places, or stay off for an extended period of time.
- The emissions credit market (where Tesla made most of its money) is dead due to lowered standards.
- Manufacturing costs haven't come down.
- EV sales share in the US is down to 6% (and falling every quarter).
- Chinese EVs are dominating every market outside the US.
- All the overhyped moonshots (sub-$30K car, unsupervised autopilot, autonomous robots) are nowhere to be seen.
It's hard to see where Tesla goes from here as a company. The stock is still surviving on Elon hype but has been stagnant for 5 years. The day he gets bored and decides to resign to focus on SpaceX full time the company is basically done.
US car companies have been protected and bailed out too many times and are now not only completely uncompetitive on the global market, but set up to be completely demolished as EVs take over.
Their bad leadership and overall inefficiency mean that either investors are going to pay a massive price, or US consumers are going to pay a massive price. If we keep on pushing up consumer costs by propping up bad manufacturers with protectionism and bail outs, the US's entire economy is drug down by that.
There needs to be some creative destruction, ruthless culling of the least efficient manufacturers, so that their best workers can go to the better manufacturers, if the US is ever going to be a top tier car manufacturer again.
I hadn't followed just how bad US manufacturers were failing at EVs the past two years, what with all the other disasters unfolding, thanks for the wake up call. Two years of wasted time, of the US falling even farther behind... such a massive fail and yet not the most massive.
I'd say Koreans are probably the closest to the Chinese, but Japanese manufacturers have fallen behind. Toyota spent too much time with hydrogen. Nissan? Honda? Mazda? None of them have a solid lineup of electric vehicles.
I appreciate Toyota's hybrids, but that is not the future and every model year that they try to delay, they are missing out on developing the technology, experience, internal expertise, and platform refinement.
Toyota is the leader by profit, has been selling cars with batteries and electric motors for 3 decades and simply doesn't want to pile into a crowded space where you effectively have to be dumping your product at cost to have a chance of success.
While most others are wasting money on failed forays into the EV market, Toyota has quietly made their entire fleet (modulo trucks) hybrid.
At this point anyone can design a chassis to accommodate a skateboard battery and some drive motors. The only thing Toyota would need to wholeheartedly jump into EV is the supply chain and production capability for big battery packs. Admittedly this is a biggie, but don't discount the possibility that batteries are not at the end of their evolution and early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor.
> early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor.
the iphone is an outlier imho, and i dont think EV will replicate this.
The manufacturing capacity of batteries in china will continue to be a dominant force, and prevent competition in other countries from really setting up properly.
Not to mention the chinese EV giants have the R&D budget to be the ones to discover new chemistry.
I think this might be more like a TSMC situation where the rest of the world is always behind.
China will have a critical mass of research, scientists, manufacturing, engineers, and the right government buy in to stay ahead because there's so much demand.
Yeah that's nonsense. Toyota is behind on a number of technologies. They are still making cars, but its the old style of cars in every aspect. They haven't done the integration of technology and the car the way Tesla or China has.
They are surviving because of massive scale but they are losing ground.
> The only thing Toyota would need to wholeheartedly jump into EV is the supply chain and production capability for big battery packs.
So the only thing they need is the hardest part of the supply chain. At Toyota scale building that supply-chain is fucking gigantic. It takes a decade to build that.
All the battery companies already have large multi-year of-take agreements. And they are not building massive new capacity without new demand.
> but don't discount the possibility that batteries are not at the end of their evolution and early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor.
We haven't seen new form factors in many decades.
As for chemistry, everybody is working on that. Toyota has burned billions and achieved nothing.
Yes new chemistry are constantly coming in, but the reality is, each new chemistry innovation needs a decade or so to scale. And it mostly builds on existing supply chains and suppliers.
Take a look at things like silicon additives, they have been talked about for a long time, and it has been increasing. And it will continue to increase, but its not a magical pill that makes all existing battery factories obsolete.
Battery companies sell their new state of the art batteries to their long term partners first. And those partners are the first to learn of new innovations.
Toyota didn't just spend (past tense) too much time with hydrogen, they're still going with it trying to take a "multi-path strategy" that includes hydrogen engine development.
I'm not sure where they think the market for this exists in sustainable numbers.
It's really insane. I live in Japan where you'd think Toyota may have some pull to make their dream come true. My city actually has one (1) hydrogen station, it's only open a day or two a week - it's basically only open by appointment, you have to call ahead if you want to be sure to be able to fill up.
I have an insider friend that says they just don’t believe in battery electric and so have never built the supply chain for it. It leaves them searching for the next thing despite what is occurring in the market, they think they’ll prevail as they’re not focused on a (perceived) faulty approach. I’m not privy to all the details they have to reach that investment thesis but it explains a lot we see from the outside.
Oh no, how dare a company try and invest R&D into a diversified portfolio of propulsion technologies. I'm sure HN has all the right ideas, just like they had the right idea when Starship was almost sure to beat SLS to orbit and full IOC a decade before Artemis II. I'm sure Morizo is crying after winning his latest gentleman drivers' race and wiping all his tears away with his paper yen.
It is genuinely insane how divorced SV is from actual people and reality.
I'm old enough to remember when people said 'Falcon Heavy is fake', 'SLS' is real. After that they shifted to 'Starship is fake' SLS is real.
And that SLS launched first isn't surprising it started to get 2 billion $ a year funding long before SpaceX had any money to invest in such projects.
And what matters for a rocket isn't 'first to orbit' that's only how idiots compare rockets. What matters is first 10 or even 100 flights.
And as for R&D, fine do R&D, but you still have to produce what actually sells. The simple fact is, hydrogen cars, either fuel cell or ICE are rounding errors. They have been rounding errors for decades and have made essentially no progress despite 50+ years of continuous government funding and R&D.
They are not just doing R&D, they have literally spend marketing money demonizing EVs. They have encouraged and leaned in to all government lead efforts to delay the EV industry. They have lobbied for regressive legislation. To act as if 'all they do is some nice R&D' is pathetic.
Toyota has not done like Tesla and invested in infrastructure, like hydrogen fuel stations. Because they know this is delusional and will never happen. Their hope has always been that government is going to build all the infrastructure for them, and pay for their R&D. They have been grifting government R&D money for literal decades. Even while with just a fraction of that money the EV industry was established. They have been lobbying Japans government for decades and have used that to prevent more beneficial R&D and infrastructure investment.
And Toyota is barley even selling these 'diversified portfolios'. Go and actually try to buy a hydrogen ICE or hydrogen fuel cell cars. In literally 99.9% of the world you can't buy them.
Hydrogen is a pipe-dream propped up by government budgets and anybody that believed in its wide deployment in 2000 was a moron, anybody that still believes in it in 2027 is straight up delusional.
So if anybody is divorced from reality its you.
> It's a shame __________ didn't lean harder into EVs
That's the story with just about every "legacy" manufacturer because they don't understand the existential nature of the shift; it doesn't feel real while their ICE are still their money maker.
That does beg the question though, if none of the major non-Chinese manufacturers are focused on EVs did they all entirely miss the boat or do they know something the Chinese don't?
Its absolutely possible that they did all miss the boat, but even the stats just in this thread point to a drop in EV sales and economic challenges with regards to price and demand. The Chinese keep prices low with very low labor costs and subsidies from a totalitarian government, our goal isn't and shouldn't be to compete with that on price.
> Chinese keep prices low with .. subsidies from a totalitarian government
Lower labour costs per hour can be balanced against lower cost of living for workers.
Industrial Policy Spending for China’s EV Sector (subsidies) have dropped from $13,800 USD per vehicle in 2018 to $4,700 USD in 2023 and are less today in 2026.
How do these subsidies compare to US subsidies to the fossil fuel oil and gas industry?
China, for all its flaws, is the undisputed master of innovative automated manufacturing. They can iterate over design revisions quickly. They will build you whatever you want, and, unlike twenty years ago, it will be insanely precise, and everything that can be automated will be. US and EU automakers have to keep their unionized employees happy, which means less automation and less precision and higher prices. Robots and AI don't unionize.
I hate to see it and I hate to say it, but the last time I was in Europe there were A LOT more giant american vehicles, at least outside of city centers. I really hope this SUV plague doesn't go global.
One state makes up over a third of all EV sold in the country EV’s have a way to go in the United States. Hybrids seem to be doing a lot better in recent times.
California accounts for roughly 35% of all U.S. EV sales, though some estimates put its share near 40%.
That's certainly a way to view the data, but it's a way that ignores the trajectory of the technology and sets up The Big Three for complete failure.
The Big Three have not figured out how to make compelling EVs, without a doubt, but it's not the technology that's the problem, it's the leadership's product choices and failure of implementation.
Meaning that the entire industry will be pushed farther and farther behind in the race, only to be completely disrupted.
This will happen far slower than the transition from Palm to iOS-style phones, because the lifetime of cars is far longer than phones and are far larger investments, but the trend is inevitable. EVs are superior on so many different fronts that there's ~0 chance that gas and diesel engines persist except for a tiny fraction of future market share.
US manufacturers are trying to delay the transition as long as possible, which only ensures their own doom.
It's not just the Big Three, it's a boat anchor of the Big Three + Tier 1/2/3 suppliers. Tesla probably most vertically integrated of any, therefor most likely able to survive a major pivot.
California is the world’s fourth largest economy, so this tracks. Whether or not flyover country gets EVs is immaterial to the overall US situation. They can pay forward curve petrol prices if they so choose (“freedom!”), or find a suitable EV if that is a more suitable choice for their needs, unless federal policy returns to assist with purchasing. I am hopeful, concerning recent regime change, that federal EV incentives come back to enable folks to buy affordable EVs (because we should be optimizing for affordable zero emission mobility for all, imho), but only time will tell.
Wyoming‘s population of 600k people is less than one percent of total US population, for example. Californians buy about half that number of EVs per year (~300k-400k).
Flyover country has several times the population of California. It’s vital to the success of American manufacturers that their products sell well there too.
Nah. You go where the purchasing power is, and that is not poor rural America that is evaporating [1]. K Shaped economy. That’s related, but distinct from the fact that American auto makers are already dead. They collectively wrote off $50B in EV investment to turn away from EVs, and GM just created a $20B multi year stock buyback plan while not investing more in electrification. That is an active choice to allocate that capital to profits instead of investment to build EVs.
The future is affordable, well built Chinese EVs. They already have the capacity to build 50M EVs per year, more than half of global total light vehicle demand. They are currently exporting ~12M/year, and constrained only by there not being enough marine car carriers available to ship more. They are building more car carriers to ramp exports to the world. How long would it take the US to learn how to build 10-20M EVs per year? A decade, probably more, on current trajectories, during which Chinese automakers will continue to ramp. “Build the machine that builds the machine.”
There are plenty of well-off people in poor rural areas, and there are plenty of wealthy urban areas in flyover country. California is an important market but it's not so important that the rest can be ignored.
(assume 45k-$50k new vehicle price in the US, back out to the income needed to support a payment at current interest rates on a 5-7 year term, which is roughly $500-$1000/month, which is why auto loans are currently defaulting at record highs)
It makes no sense to respond to this with a chart of median income. That tells you nothing about how many well-off people there are beyond limiting it to less than 50%, presuming the median is below whatever threshold you consider.
Mississippi, the lowest one on the list, has a top 5% at over $200,000/year. That's ~150,000 people in households who can comfortably afford a nice new EV, in just one small, poor state.
The states defined by the Census Bureau as being in "the midwest" (a subset of "flyover states") contain about 70 million people. The top 5% would be 3.5 million people who can afford a nice new EV. And this is conservative: someone in the top 6% can probably afford one too, but I'm not counting them, and there's plenty of "flyover state" territory beyond the midwest.
California is big enough and rich enough to have a huge amount of market power. But it's not so big and rich that it makes 100+ million Americans in the middle of the country completely irrelevant and ignorable.
Seriously though, everywhere I've lived there have been at least some doctors, dentists, college professors, business owners and suchlike; even Mississippi has hospitals, or so I'm told.
Sure, I know and admit these people exist. I did extensive market research on the US EV TAM before being a late private early public investor in Tesla (~<$20/share), riding in the first Roadster to evaluate the product, etc, and even with updated models to account for socioeconomic strata that continues to bifurcate, I believe my thesis holds around who and who cannot to afford to buy new vehicles at current price levels (it’s definitely gotten worse than 15 years ago, for gestures broadly at everything reasons). I’m saying, broadly speaking, all of the purchasing power is mostly in urban areas, although there are some exceptions in the middle of nowhere as you commented. This does not mean we should leave Rural America out in the cold.
Fundamentally, if we expect Rural America to buy affordable EVs (which, imho, they will need to do, and we should crank on policy to achieve), someone will have to force them to be affordable. Allow cheap, high quality Chinese imports, or nationalize an automaker as they approach failure. But right now, Rural America is captive to a parasite US auto industry profitmaxxing by minimizing production and maxing their profits, protected by tariffs. You cannot compel them to make affordable cars currently, but if you don’t, Rural America is fucked.
“You can just do things.”
(no current TSLA exposure, out long ago around “420 funding secured,” but still own a handful of Teslas out of sentimental reasons)
We absolutely should not go down the road of nationalizing companies and means of production. The government already has too much influence and control over our lives, we don't need them taking even more by using their power to gobble up failing companies.
We should watch how poorly its going trying to have NYC own something as simple as a few grocery stores. If the government is stepping in to make things cheaper they're destroying competition in the entire industry. They either inadvertently end up owning the entire industry by driving out all privately owned companies, or they subsidize those private companies so they can compete with the state owned ones.
This is an opinion. Many people have opinions. Test it in the current sociopolitical forward curve. Obama nationalized GM, to great success, and he was a centrist (very mid in my opinion, but a statesmen with tacit, so respect where due). 100+ Democratic Socialists were elected in midterm elections. Therefore, I think forward looking, the appetite for this goes up overtime. Shareholder rights and cap tables are simply shared delusions. The shared delusion can change, when needed.
Mamdani has a ~70% approval rating, and a long list of wins, New York City is doing phenomenal. There is strong evidence this was a contributing factor in more democratic socialist being elected across the country (“Mamdani Effect”), including the mayor of LA. If you think it isn’t, well, you’re ignoring reality. That’s a choice. Do so at your own peril.
In this specific context around auto manufacturing, it is clear there is no competition, and US tariff policy is keeping competition out to benefit legacy auto management and their shareholders. We could flip the switch on tariff policy, and they would immediately have competition, but they can’t handle it. The evidence is clear they are already doing poorly for the US consumer, and they have no intentions to change.
Old people, fond of capitalism, keep dying every day, and young people who believe in socialism keep entering the electorate. Only time will tell, but rough trajectory is clear.
Limit subsidies to vehicles that are no more expensive than $25k after subsidies. Make them build cars like BYD, with sub 4% margins. No subsidies for Tesla, they had their chance. He can find a new grift. It’s time to focus on people who actually build, not those who use theatrics to inflate silly capital market numbers for power and status.
To be fair an absolute amount already does that. $6k less is nice for a Mercedes CLA (~$55k), but there's a reason you can't buy a Hyundai Inster ($20k) and get it within a year.
It's interesting to try to work out what the civ-style "dependency tree" of viable electric cars has been. It requires at the bare minimum high energy density light batteries, which were a spinoff of the cellphone revolution. As well as high efficiency digital power control, which while not impossible in 1970 would have been larger and heavier without modern SiC semiconductors.
Solar panels are an even more remarkable example of compounding a thousand different 1% improvements.
>Solar panels are an even more remarkable example of compounding a thousand different 1% improvements.
But they aren't really. In terms of efficiency, a 2x increase is a lot yes but the thing that has finally made them really viable is simply the cost dropping like a rock.
I don't care if I have to buy 2x as many solar panels when they cost as much as a fence post.
That cost reduction was entirely investment into production capacity. None of that couldn't have been accomplished decades ago.
That's the saddest part. If we had been adults in the 70s, we could already be done the green revolution basically. We could have seriously prevented global warming.
But a bunch of idiots rejected that and instead voted for people who doubled down on fucking up the middle east and burning liquids.
I interpreted the "1% improvements" to be exactly that effect of cost dropping like a rock (economic efficiency), not about the energy conversion efficiency.
PV entrepreneurs are the real heroes of the climate movement, IMHO. They figured out markets that would have enough demand to push forward with developing the tech. Germany's government is a major hero too, they pushed the tech forward so far at a crucial time. Then China took up the mantle.
Both supply and demand need to build together for the industry to grow. Government subsidies played a huge role in accelerating this, and will have paid for themselves so many times over. We're going to live in a world of super-cheap technology thanks to the modest tax-cut-based investments of governments the world over.
It does suck that so many powerful people were against the obvious-in-retrospect good idea of solar PV, but I'd love to focus on all the heroes that pushed through anyway and made it happen. They deserve a lot of thanks!
The real heroes are still the boots on the ground climate/green/anti-nuclear movements of multiple decades that enabled the parties to be voted into power, that set up the subsidies which gave entrepreneurs an actual market, initial funding, public research to use and planning security.
As you said, subsidies played a huge role. Look at the timeline when Germany and then Spain set up their subsidies and the following ramp up in PV production.
Sure, it was an idea at the right time, but the right time needed decades of political groundwork.
While the entrepreneurs deserve some credit, they generally got cash. The movements got massive backlash by conservatives and some got terrorism charges for protesting non-violently.
Well, perhaps, but the time for the followers in the field to push on EV manufacturing capability has been the past 5-10 years. And the US majors are all followers, not leaders. About two years ago they all put out press releases saying "we are not seeing EV sales so we are pulling back on manufacturing" meaning "we couldn't figure it out and are scared so we are abandoning our future."
With the strangle hold that these industries have on getting the government to bail them out, we are in a really bad position on the national level. We have let bad politics and weak management override good economic decision making.
Full disclosure: I have been driving an EV for almost a decade. I use an e-bike too. Electric commuting is brilliant. I'm glad for the sake of air quality that EVs and e-bikes exist and are increasingly popular.
That said — let's be realistic and dispassionate.
> There needs to be some creative destruction, ruthless culling of the least efficient manufacturers, so that their best workers can go to the better manufacturers, if the US is ever going to be a top tier car manufacturer again.
Inflicting job losses at that scale is not going to happen. US protectionism (a euphemism for ahem current federal initiatives) is alive and well. The legacy US auto makers have a huge domestic market and their survival is a primary motive for the US trade/tariff war. (Does the thoroughly corrupt administration face any comeuppance? That is a different discussion.)
The lack of EVs has not been a pivotal concern of voters. US voters want cheap fuel. Affordability was a fundamental concern for voters. The mid-term election result is not about loftier environmental goals.
> Their bad leadership and overall inefficiency
Yes, "an American vehicle" is known for grotesque size and high cost of maintenance. And now after two years of a despicable administration, "an American vehicle" is also a Trump-Miller-Hegseth-Bessent-Lutnick-Musk-*.arsehole symbol.
Even so, Tesla sales success is real, domestic and abroad. People who can afford them buy them.
Chinese EV have heavy import taxes in the EU. Also in France, (I don’t know in other countries), you get more subvention when buying an EU-made EV. This heavily distorts the market to try to save VW and friends.
I see sources saying BYD sold 187,657 vehicles in Europe in 2025, and MG sold 307,812. Interesting.
Your source only says:
“Top 5 best-selling EV brands in Europe in 2025
Volkswagen – 274.417 (+56%)
Tesla – 238.765 (-27%)
BMW – 193.186 (+15%)
Skoda – 172.100 (+117%)
Audi – 153.848 (+51%)”
Of course, because the agreement between the European Union and Chinese limits battery electric vehicles, but does not limit hybrids the same way… which I think speaks again to the ability of the different manufacturers to compete on a “fair” basis
Correction: the European Union imposed additional tariffs (up to 35%) on Chinese-made battery-electric vehicles, while conventional hybrids and plug-in hybrids were exempt from those additional tariffs, giving Chinese manufacturers an incentive to shift toward hybrid sales.
I think they have a future as a "normal" car company, but in order to do that they'd have to manage to deliver a new "normal car" model at some point, and accept normal stock prices.
That EV market share direction in the US, though .. really bad compared to non-petrostates (except Norway)
They’ve never been a normal car company. And that’s the problem.
They don’t do a good job at the car company part. They make nice cars, but the company part has issues. Quick example… I was very happy to drive a model 3 for many years. But the constant changes in price of their new cars destroyed any resale value mine had. Every time Tesla was having a bad quarter, the value of my car dropped. That’s not the way to get me to buy another one.
There are certainly other areas where they could improve too. But my point being - they’ve never been all that good at (or interested in) what it takes to drive long term success in selling cars. It’s just too long of a time horizon for them.
I never understood why people care about "resale value" of a car. I buy a car to drive it until it's done. I don't buy a gaming PC and worry about resale value, or a polo, or sneakers, or a nice mop. I buy stuff to use it.
Not that you’re the only one deciding when you’re done with the car. I’ve had the misfortune of getting in an accident and having a car totaled, at which time the insurance company will give you something like the value of the car at that time. If all else is equal and you’re choosing between two cars, you might want to opt for the one that retains value better.
I don’t know that you have to agree with typical consumer behavior to accept it as a reality, though. And resale value does matter to people who don’t drive cars into the ground, because trade-in value affects your purchasing power when you do decide to get a new one.
And even if you do keep cars indefinitely, it can still be an important consideration because it affects how things work out when you need to make an insurance claim. It means your car is both more likely to be declared a total loss and more likely to be worth less than what you still owe for it when it does get totaled.
Because if you desperately need cash, you can trade in the $80,000 luxury suv for a $20,000 subcompact, and use that cash to pay rent and for food. It's a depreciating asset and sometimes a money sink, sure, but if you live somewhere you need a car anyway, some people choose the more expensive ones.
That's... Financially irresponsible. You build your cushion in non-depreciating assets. If you are approaching situation where you would desperately need cash, you prepare for in some way different from buying luxurious suvs.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Most parts of the world yes. Somehow in the US, no. My sister had cancer for 7 years and I think I probably paid close to $50k on her treatments because the treatments her insurance covered weren't sufficient so we had to take her to an out of network clinic (Mayo).
The "most parts of the world yes" is absolutely not true. Unless you consider G20 countries to be most of the world. In most parts of the world if you want actual state of the art treatment, you've got to pay from your own pocket.
It seems strange to me not to. Because if you don't sell it, you're basically the kind of person who drives a new car one day, but ten years later, you're a person who drives a ten year old car?
Speaking as someone who mostly drives 20 year old cars.
I get your point. But look at this from Tesla’s point of view. Why should they care? They will want to sell as many cars as possible. If they sell me a car, that’s just one sale. However, every marketing book will tell you that it’s easier to sell to an existing customer.
If my car (an asset) has more resale value, I’m more likely to sell it to buy a new one. They should be trying to protect my resale value — if they want me as a repeat customer. Even if I want to buy another Tesla, if my resale value isn’t high, I’d wait longer to buy a new one.
Or, what I’m leasing the car (reasonable for an EV and used to have better tax incentives)? If the end of lease value is low, I have to spend more on the depreciation over the lease. That makes my monthly payment higher. Instead, if the end of lease value is higher, I have a lower monthly payment and I’m more likely to buy the car.
Either way, Tesla was good at selling one car. They need to get better at selling the second or third one.
If Tesla is dropping the price of their cars, then that means you can buy a new car for less. It makes no sense to want to overpay for a consumable item at time t+1, regardless of what you paid at time t.
If cost(t) >> cost(t+1), then I'm not going to be able to afford to buy that new car. I'm going to be underwater on that deal. That also means that Tesla has one fewer possible sale. I'm not overpaying for a new car, which means that if Tesla would like to have more sales, they should try to keep their prices more constant.
Remember, this is from the Tesla point of view... and it's a long time-horizon perspective. It's a much easier decision from the customer's point of view.
(And there are other ways for companies to incentivize sales with discounts and promotions that don't obviously impact the "value" of the car).
Because an old car often costs more in maintenance. It's best to re-sale it before it gives you too much trouble. Basically, you can have a more reliable car with no extra cost. And some people like modern and new cars and upgrade every few years.
For a lot of people cars are less a way to get from point A to point B and more of a status symbol, so they like to drive a new or at least newer car.
Personally I'm with you. I love my car because its exactly enough car for my needs. I bought it new (in 2016) and I never want to sell it. I'd get so much less (or more to the point I can't buy a new car) for the same money I spent on it.
A stock drop does not in and of itself kill a company which has positive cashflow, although it may give the executives heart attacks and leave it vulnerable to takeover.
If the company keeps the startup structure of paying employees in stock options and growing by VC money into the several billions value, yes a stock drop can kill it in and of itself.
1. compare debt, tesla is cash rich while old OEMs are saddled with debt
2. compare growth opportunities, ie https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi - rollout is going well, and every cybercab produced nets what ? $25k/year? $75k/year? vs $5-8k once per car sold?
I don't like Musk, but this is the correct answer. So many people are trying to fit Tesla into the old OEM box but they are not a car company. They are a technology company that sells cars.
I don't know if robotaxi will take off, but if it does, it massively undercuts Waymo because the vehicles are just so much cheaper to make and are made in house.
Just like WeWork is not a real estate company, but a technology company that does real estate. They had nearly $0.5m net income in 2016, but presumably the future is bright.
Yeah, by basically ignoring regulation. That's going to be a lot tougher since the midterm results. The government will no longer be giving him any easy passes.
Oooh, normal cars. Now there's a concept. Can we get a real EV minivan? Not a gimmick like the Buzz. I've got kids and go on long road trips to visit family. Seats, cargo capacity, range, and 800V charging speed.
Closest thing is like the Ioniq 9 but the cargo space really sucks.
For a polished product that ticks all the boxes, I would pay a premium for this.
XPeng X9 - Seven seats, 800V charging, and a third row that folds into the floor. The long-range version has 382 miles WLTP range and charges 10–80% in approximately 12 minutes under ideal conditions.
Li Auto MEGA - Seven seats, 800V architecture, 441 miles CLTC range, and manufacturer-claimed charging that adds 311 miles of CLTC range in 10 minutes. Li Auto says its trunk holds four 28-inch suitcases with all seven seats occupied.
Zeekr 009 - Seven-seat versions, up to 460 miles CLTC range, and 10–80% charging in as little as 10 minutes on the upgraded 900V model. Very luxurious, though some versions offer less rear cargo space.
Denza D9 EV - Seven seats, 115-kWh battery, up to 497 miles CLTC range, and BYD Flash Charging claims of 10–70% in five minutes using compatible ultra-high-power chargers.
China is years ahead of the West (EU/US) in terms of EVs.
Lucid Gravity. We just picked one up after cross shopping an R1S. Its been solid so far the interior packaging is impressive. I was sold after driving it. Although it is more of a wagon than anything.
I've been seesawing between R1S and Gravity. Granted, I cant afford either right now, but planning for the future. But it made me realize : I don't know if I trust that Lucid will be around in a few years. Rivian seems more stable. And I don't want to buy a $100k car from a company that may not be around in a few years because then I basically have a brick.
I live in SE Asia and travel regularly for work in this region. Chinese EV's are everywhere and completely dominate the market, except perhaps a few fans in Singapore, it's living driving in the future (Denza D9 anyone?) compared to Western countries (tech-wise, not the questionable production and market flooding)
They are running a fleet of taxis around the Bay Area. It's kind of scary because they aren't that safe, given the lack of LIDAR. But they are doing it anyway.
I’m not sure these self-reported numbers are trustworthy considering they report “0 robotaxi injuries” when a cursory Google search turns up this article claiming 249 Roboxtaxi accidents in Austin and at least two injuries that required hospital visits. Which is at least two more than “0 injuries”.
Photogrammetry + AI has developed to the degree, that there are 3D scanning apps on iPhone that don't even use the Lidar when available, so you can certainly make do without and get comparable results.
Because less then ideal conditions for vision exist? Heavy snow/rain/fog, sun shining into cameras at dawn and dusk etc
It’s not hard to be better then an average human generally, the issue is liability as when a driverless taxi hits or hurts someone you can’t just go “but we are safer then human drivers!”
> Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly cut 30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) workers in February, disproportionately affecting regulators tasked with assessing self-driving vehicle risks, according to a Financial Times report.
The incentive to switch is a little lower with actually affordable gasoline. In Europe, gas prices are incredibly high right now and will probably never go down again, so it’s natural for the market to drift towards electronic.
It's actually easy. The media would love to print stories about robotaxis having chaotic accidents, so you can trust that you will hear about it if that starts happening.
You might be waiting a while, though... If it's not happening now, it's unlikely to ever happen.
I rented one for a road trip. It was nothing short of magical. Scary to give it control. And I can believe there are edge cases … but it’s real.
I’d guess that it’s going to take a while to catch up because the real world data is the moat. Maybe if someone partners with Waymo but the price point will be higher.
The thing that gives me pause about buying one is: what happens if the company loses interest? Is it like “owning” a game after the company shuts down the servers?
I’ve heard the same but I think the question is “is autopilot worth basing your entire car purchase around it?” and “will competitors be able to replicate Tesla’s success?”.
If autopilot is basically the only thing Tesla has going for it then they’ve got a risky path ahead of them.
From personal experience: "yes, no question", and "maybe though it'll take a long time and a lot of compute and training data". The day level 3 automation (basically what Tesla's FSD is, even though it's classified as level 2) comes to some other car, I'll strongly consider switching.
Maybe a stock crash and total failure of Tesla will be the best thing that happens. The US government (assuming us citizens can somehow continue to claw it back) or some benevolent entity can buy the ML models for cheap and open source them. It's really their only truly valuable, resilient asset, IMO.
> “is autopilot worth basing your entire car purchase around it?”
Unsupervised FSD is, yes.
> and “will competitors be able to replicate Tesla’s success?”.
I wouldn't bet on a big auto-maker, personally. But maybe they can outsource it. And...well, AI. Things are moving fast. But I think the moat can hold for a while.
For me, even now it's worth basing the entire purchase around it. Competitor auto-makers, if they executed perfectly, would need 4-5 years to get to catch up to where Tesla is now in autonomous driving; so probably a lot longer in reality.
I loved how the Cybertruck looked but when I test-drove it, I realized it wasn't for me. Tesla can now do a Rivian R1 or Hyundai Palissade type design and do well. But they will prioritize the cab since they got it to the current scale pretty quickly and it will be a money printer for them.
> *”will competitors be able to replicate Tesla’s success?”
Tech first companies like Waymo: yes, clearly.
OEM US automakers? Not a chance, not ever. They can’t do a simple infotainment system to save themselves.
If they want to “auto” driving, they’re going to license it from some other company.
I have it. It is shockingly good but not as good as a person. And anything below 100% is dangerous.
For instance, how it detects pedestrians. Ive had instances where someone is looking to cross, the FSD either ignores them completely or it slows down a little, baits them into going forward, then resumes running them over. It detects car to car problems very well but doesn’t try to interpret pedestrian’s intent outside of the actual road.
I, and many others, could never go back to a vehicle that doesn't have this level of self-driving. It really is such an improvement it's crazy how little people who haven't experienced it understand.
This article just says that teleoperators had remote access to the first 20 cars when they were rolled out ~17 months ago. It doesn't support a claim that the fleet is currently using teleoperators, let alone relying on them more broadly as you seem to imply.
> Recently, Jonas met with Tesla with some clients and released a new note that he hinted to be based on what he learned from Tesla during the meeting. He claims that the planned “robotaxi” rollout in Austin next month [June '25] is going to use “plenty of tele ops to ensure safety levels”: Austin’s a ‘go’ but fleet size will be low. Think 10 to 20 cars. Public roads. Invite only. Plenty of tele ops to ensure safety levels (“we can’t screw up”). Still waiting for a date. ‘Tele ops’ stands for teleoperations, meaning that Tesla employees will be able to remotely access Tesla’s vehicles and operate them in some capacity.
I wish people would stop saying stood things like this and consider the structural and technical reasons why TSLA share values might be disconnected from the company's performance. (No one wants to do that because it might point to misbehavior by market participants.)
Hundreds of billions of dollars do not move because of "hype"; someone, somewhere is making a calculated decision.
I’d say Tesla’s charging network remains a very strong suit for them. Problem is it’s nowhere near strong enough to justify their current valuation. But we’ve been saying this for years and the stock price still stays irrationally high.
Well it depends on what you are saying "can do". Ford and GM already outsell Tesla on volume by 4-5x each. There is some portion of the population that will spend more for an EV but that is a tapped and declining market. Chinese manufacturers are selling attractive EVs at a cost lower than their ICE counterpart - not higher. But they are cut out of the USA market. Now we can say that Tesla is leading in autopilot and other things like that but apparently that is not translating to growing sales. They have a stagnant lineup of models that people would actually buy.
That’s not true in general but the Cybertruck in particular is stupid expensive to manufacture. And then there’s the 4680 fiasco. I think it’s more of a personal political design than a realistic product.
It’s slightly amazing how persistent the Elon hype is. Quite a few of those problems are at least partially due to own goals that Musk himself has been scoring.
I realize that some of it is just a cult of personality, and that part will be unusually sticky because of things like cognitive dissonance. But that can’t be all of it. My next best guess is a bunch of it is a whole bunch of institutional investors are privately thinking these companies are way too risky, but keep it to themselves because it’s not their money they’re putting on the line and taking a contrarian position would risk angering a presumably vocal subset of clients of unknown size. Which isn’t a great way to make yourself popular with your boss.
No, the biggest knock against him is how he caused hundreds of thousands of people in the third world to die from sudden cutoff of food and medicine. This will never be forgiven or forgotten.
No seriously, this actually didn't happen. That one website is a "model" and simply doesn't account at all for the fact that most of the critical parts of USAID were picked up by other US aid programs.
It looked like it might happen for a bit! And it is quite bad of course that that could have happened! But it didn't.
I have read multiple articles to the same effect from other publications. Aid got cut off instantly (to the extent that supply trucks were left without gasoline), people could not access medicine and food that they needed to survive, and then they died, horribly. That was just ground zero.
Get out of your bubble before you destroy yourself.
Yes, people died. People did not die at the scale reported.
edit: Okay fine, I'll rephrase it. There is no convincing evidence at this point of mass deaths. It's entirely speculative on the basis, frankly, of assumptions we know to be wrong.
Confirmed. Those numbers come from models and estimates but are not supported by anything that actually happened on the ground. Funding was transferred to the state department.
(I literally just asked Gemini "how many deaths are verified to be caused directly by the sudden shutdown of usaid?" to find some articles I had read featuring actual journalists tracking deaths on the ground.)
This is literally an interview that doesn't even list a number with a source. The one number it lists is a self-declared estimate of 700k deaths of which it sources three (3).
Elon proposed it and implemented it. Yes, Trump signed off on it but by that logic no one in the Trump administration is guilty of anything other than Trump himself, which we all know is not true.
Elon actually bragged about destroying USAID on Twitter.
"We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could gone to some great parties. Did that instead."
This is the richest man in the world being GLEEFUL abut destroying an organization that helps the poorest people in the world. Musk is basically Ebenezer Scrooge.
In an interview when asked about it he insisted their was vast amounts of fraud in USAID.
Whatever USAID is guilty of, it is indisputable that thousands of people died from aid being suddenly cut off without a tapering period. You can find many news articles talking to people on the ground that confirm this.
The money was ostensibly used for noble purposes but usually ended up funding unsavory characters or organizations that are actually at cross purposes with stated US goals. A lot of humanitarian aid we send to the Middle Eastfor example, ends up in the hands of terrorists.[1]
> A lot of humanitarian aid ... ends up in the hands of terrorists.
Which you "prove" by linking to a story how $9 million was "diverted" (although the person responsible was caught and charged) out of a total of $12 billion.
That's 9 parts of 12 thousand or 0.075% that you are describing as "a lot".
It's your story - it's up to you to demonstrate the scale of loss.
So far all you have demonstrated is that US AID loses less aid money than CBH loses in grain to parrots each year.
If you think think that millions of tonnes of grain should be not transported because less than 1% is eaten by parrots then you're committed to starving millions of food.
The man who fires the gun is just as culpable as the man who makes the plan. And boy, did Musk enjoy playing executioner! He acted with gleeful, reckless abandon and gloated about “taking a chainsaw” to USAID. And as I recall, they shoved Rubio in front of the cameras only after Musk's illegal rampage already happened, as a sort of fig leaf.
Most people don't even pay attention to what he announces, myself included. It happens if/when it happens. I got on a plane and had fast internet for the first time thanks to Starlink, that's great. But when someone at work is telling me about his "FSD" car, sure, show me it going around the block while we sit in the back.
All of those are debatable at best from a business perspective.
Neuralink is still in clinical trials. So it hasn’t actually been delivered yet, and there’s no actual guarantee that it will be.
From a certain perspective, SpaceX’s launch business was an effort to create an airline in space. And that’s exactly what they did, profit margins and all.
Starlink is looking good right now, but its profits seem to be heavily propped up by crony capitalism, a system that the US electorate arguably voted against in a big way earlier this week. Plus, their up-and-coming competition was recently handed a gift beyond their wildest dreams, courtesy of Elon Musk, in the form of a clear demonstration that dependence on SpaceX is a major strategic liability.
The AI bit, well… yeah.
Tesla has had some past greatness, but, as I mentioned above, all of their recent misfortune is wholly or partially the fault of its own CEO. Worse, many of the minds more directly behind past successes have left the company. Investment is about future prospects, not past glory.
Boring Company’s greatest commercial success thus far is the Las Vegas loop. That’s all that needs to be said about that.
But again, from a business perspective this is all just PoCs, not products delivered to market. There’s a whole gauntlet, including a very difficult and expensive regulatory approval process, between all of it and a successfully delivered product that can start generating ROI.
Hah, and what, pray tell, has bunderbunder done to so casually dismiss the thousands of engineers pushing the boundaries of physics in almost every single one of those companies?
You have completely missed the point. I never said a single word about whether or not engineers have engineered. I’m talking partially about whether Musk’s companies merit the valuations they’re getting, and partially about whether the investor goodwill that Musk’s companies receive is merited.
Furthermore, what exactly are you getting at, anyway? If I just uncritically gave all my money to anyone who I think might have hired people who are better at mechanical engineering than I am, then I would have no money.
There’s a severe lack of focus and the only endgame that still makes sense to me for Tesla is basically turning into a cab service like Waymo. Perhaps you own the car perhaps not.
It's crazy that Democrats were the pro EV party because of the environment, and half the reason liberals bought Teslas, but Elon's white supremacy overrode his business interests and he went all in with the fossil fuel party. And Tesla shareholders rewarded him with an insane pay package for this genius move.
Democrats abandoned the environment in lieu of this weird obsession with socialism- starting with the unions. First, Tesla was repeatedly snubbed when the Biden administration poured billions into every other car company to make them produce EVs- gleefully declaring GMC of all companies to be the Leader of EVs. Then, the COVID situation where the local staff member in government made it illegal for Tesla, and only Tesla, to continue operating. That's when Elon finally got the message that the Democratic party had abandoned him, and cared more about raising money than any kind of environment or progress. He then went on twitter, called it out, and then the entire democratic party reformed under the banner of Anti-Elon (since the whole trans and immigrant stuff was settling down a bit too much to encourage passion).
I think he had his feelings hurt by these snubs, but to align with the anti-immigrant side was odd. I think that, plus he understood the Republican "money in my pocket over all" values rather than a more complex "be a decent person" valueset. The former was more clear than the latter, and clarity beats morality any day.
Oh yeah, he also made what - $500 billion dollars? - by aligning with corruption and cronyism.
edit - also, as I've become older, I find myself saying more and more that my dad was right. I guess he may have realized the same thing after he alienated his family. It turns out maybe there was some wisdom in the old emerald mine magnate papa (</s>) and any criticism of how workers are treated, or markets manipulated, or harm caused to millions - it is just woke haters.
It's hilarious to me when Democrats crash out over Elon's reliance on EV credits, as though acting on the incentives they created was a moral failure on his part.
The proliferation of over-the-top EVs around 2019-21, not just from Tesla, did make me think something was wack with the subsidies. Gas was insanely cheap for part of that too.
This is the most realistic scenario. Hide the stock losses by folding it into SpaceX. Dare the US government to nationalize it. Walk away a “business martyr”.
He seems to suggest that the future is Cybercabs and Optimus.
But if Optimus ends up with a HW3 problem (current manufactured Optimus bots aren't autonomus yet because the software isn't finished) he'll have a pile of Cybertrucks and early-model Optimus units rotting in a field.
Personally, I just don't see it. If he merges Tesla and SpaceX it won't really be about cars or vehicle autonomy.
Their current stock valuation can't ride this uncertainty forever. At some point he has to have new products that work, no caveats.
He's also looking at an incoming congress that is going to give him a colonoscopy that he didn't ask for.
The only people I've seen driving cybertrucks tend to be asian or older white guys that likely think Elon is great. Yes, this is a generalization, but an observation over thousands of miles between the Bay Area and Vancouver, BC.
I think Tesla is in for more hurt over the coming years, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing in my opinion on how Musk has handled himself in the public arena with Tesla and Starlink.
Elon leaves the company, maybe they focus more on quality, good UX, and a lot of people not currently buying Teslas because they are owned by a nazi and have bad UX and quality issues might start.
Don't forget, they built a truck that's near impossible to sell outside the US due to the fact it's way too big and deadly for other road users.
Elon made this into something cool, but creating a whole model line for a single country is risky. Especially if that model is already in a small niche and has an incredibly controversial design.
Elon resigning from Tesla and just letting it run as a reasonable car company making just regular incremental quality and price and new model improvements on normal vehicles people want to drive could be the best thing for the company. The Model 3 is a huge success. That they didn't follow that up with just a regular pickup truck in a similar niche, and instead got distracted by this cybertruck nonsense is an indictment of Musk's poor leadership at this point.
They should just be the Toyota of EVs -- mass produce quality vehicles people want to drive -- instead he's trying to be Tony Stark and keep pumping it as a meme stock.
Tesla remains excellent at engineering and manufacturing. They need not seek the exotic.
He's a liability to that company, not an asset, at this point. And his name has become a brand liability.
The weird contradiction of musk is that his name is what’s propping up most of his companies/projects but his proximity to his companies is also a threat to them.
It makes for an interesting argument why executive comp should be capped - so they can focus on the product as the product (to benefit consumers) instead of the stock as the product (to benefit execs especially in short term)
>The stock is still surviving on Elon hype but has been stagnant for 5 years.
People may actually start buying Teslas again if they're no longer associated with a fascist trillionaire. The number of "I bought this before Elon went crazy" bumper stickers is very high. The people who would buy an electric car are turned off by his association with the brand. He's more of an albatross on the brand than a hype machine.
Throwing his first-mover advantage into the dumpster to get in bed with the political party who despises not only his core customer base but the very premise of his business is forever baffling.
Hundreds of Cybercabs are driving around cities right now with no steering wheel or pedal making money and growing 20% a week, Model Y is the best selling car (of any type) in the planet. European sales are going through the roof, they are doubling production.
Cybertruck was a mistake but rest of the business is printing cash hand over fist.
A side effect of Trump's war with Iran is that every country which doesn't have sufficient domestic oil production, which is most countries especially in Europe, has accelerated their EV transition. Buyers are grabbing every EV they can get their hands on, and yes Tesla are the leader there.
"Tesla (TSLA.O), led the UK BEV market year-to-date, with registrations up 25.4% from a year earlier and a 9.53% market share
South Korea's Kia (000270.KS), and China's BYD (002594.SZ), continued to compete for second place, with market shares of 6.9% and 6.8%, respectively"
And that's when ranked by manufacturer, which is only slightly less arbitrary than by model as auto groups just use it for market segmentation. If you rank them as groups (e.g. VW group), then Tesla isn't even in the top 5.
It's also a meaningless metric because most manufacturers sell multiple models of the same type. Toyota has Corolla, Prius, Camry, Crown, Mirai, Ativ, Century, Belta - all small-mid sized sedans. Add them up and they outsell every Tesla model put together.
BYD has 61 different models in its lineup compared to Tesla's 2.
> European sales are going through the roof, they are doubling production.
Only when compared to their recent record lows... the broader trend is still downwards. This is disingenuous. They are losing ground to other manufacturers in Europe
Also the Teslas that Europe is buying are made in China not the US.
The countries where EVs are increasing the most are those that have access to Chinese EVs.
> Hundreds of Cybercabs are driving around cities right now with no steering wheel or pedal making money and growing 20% a week
Huh? The cybercab with no steering wheel is only operating in Austin, in tiny premapped areas. There are 45 registered in Texas, and they have only been operating since September.
This isn’t Twitter, you’re generally expected to at least attempt to provide factual information here.
I've seen the golden Cybercabs rolling around in DFW. Not sure if they're actually accepting fares or not. I know they offer services with a Model Y operating "autonomously", I know in the past they had chaser cars monitoring but I've heard they've stopped that these days.
FWIW they have Cybercabs rolling around many places right now even in boring suburbs- they've all got drivers except for some very select areas (e.g. Bay Area)
Not sure what numbers you are looking at but Tesla vehicle sales peaked in 2023 and have been falling every year since then. The "sales going through the roof" narrative exists on Twitter, not their balance sheet.
- When it released, people were lighting Tesla stores and charging stations on fire, flipping off drivers, spitting on the cars even when kids were inside, and defacing them. This was generally supported, and for some reason a lot of people sided with the vandals in an effort to still be considered a Democrat and show hatred of The Other Side.
Elon's honestly their biggest problem. Can't focus on finishing one thing to save his life and alienated the shit out of the European market with his fascist beliefs.
From my perspective, owning a truck and SUV and using them differently for various use cases, the cybertruck is neither. So even if I ignore everything else I feel about it’s aesthetic, Musk, politics, etc. It simply does not serve many real world needs that I have. It put itself in a very narrow box of, only people that really like this quirky design and also like/feel indifferent to the tangential stuff will want to buy this truck. Oh, also you have to be able to afford it too. This is such a small addressable market for a vehicle to target. Was never going to work.
However, it provided content and distraction and kept the stock high longer than it should have and I feel like that’s what Musk continues to excel at.
I found out the same with pickup trucks generally.
I got one, years ago. The bed was not large enough to readily hold full sheets of plywood (the minivan I owned before could hold full sheets!). And yet, the truck was long such that parking, maneuvering in parking lots, etc, was a pain in the ass (here the minivan was about tied with the truck).
So sucked as a regular errand-car, sucked for hauling sheet goods.
(Sold it during the tail of Covid when used car prices were skyrocketing for whatever reason. Never again.)
Nailed it. I considered buying a truck for years, but the minivan has everything I want out of a vehicle. I'm so glad we got one. It's strictly better for hauling dimensional or ply, strictly better for long road trips, for gas mileage, etc. It even tows more than my jeep did, but not as much as a full size pickup. and it has a really nice reconfigurable roof rack, so adding a trip carrier on top is simple. Add to that the optional bench in back, the built in vacuum, the built in TV + entertainment, the full length moonroof, on and on.
It's a luxury vehicle that beats SUVs hands down, and most functions of urban trucks as well.
It just gets soccer mom vibes, so it's not $120,000
>It just gets soccer mom vibes, so it's not $120,000
The vehicle with soccer mom vibes may fit your use case better but that doesn't explain the cost difference. Mini vans are cheaper to manufacture. The frame, axles, brakes, engines, towing, payload hardware etc. are all lighter duty.
Agree with you, but want to say trucks are really for towing. To haul you want a trailer.
For example the f150 is rated for 1.2 tons, the 250 1.3 to 1.8 depending on configuration. gotta go to f350 for an 8 ton configuration.
For people who don't think about this often, imagine four 200lb guys riding in the cab of the f150. It's already a third of it's payload capacity at that point. Can't fit too many bags of cement in after that.
Of course this is moot in comparison to a minivan which has a payload capacity of about 3/4 ton. You’ll be over capacity in the minivan if you have a 175lb person on each seat.
> Agree with you, but want to say trucks are really for towing. To haul you want a trailer.
> For example the f150 is rated for 1.2 tons, the 250 1.3 to 1.8 depending on configuration.
Now I'm really confused. My father's Citroën CX station wagon (built 1983) was rated to tow 1.5/1.7/1.8t depending on configuration (AFAIR 2.5l Diesel engine for 1.8t), and we regularly made use of that. Admittedly 2026 is not 1983, but a BMW 3 class (not X3) can also tow 1.8t. A current VW Passat tows 1.8t to 2.2t. (Both of those are available as either limousines or station wagons.) What's the point of the F150 then? I guess if you want to do tow 1.2t every day? I would expect that the max rating also be higher if the reliability/life is better...
Ed.: nevermind, I should've just looked up the F150. It's listed as 3.4t up to 6.35t depending on configuration. Where do you get 1.2t? Is there a separate rating for "when you do this every day"?
Ed.²: wait, are you talking about hauling there? That really didn't come across for me, with the preceding sentence. (more searching) Ah, yeah. 1.4t for F150, 2.6t for F350. The 8t on F350 you're mentioning is for towing again.
(FWIW, Europeans needing anything like this generally get a Ford Transit or Mercedes Sprinter.)
Payload is almost always your limit, not pure towing capacity. You need to look at the maximum weight payload your vehicle is configured to carry (usually on a sticker in the door jamb) - this limits how much you can tow because you need 9-13% of your trailers tongue weight on the hitch which your car carries 100%
If you have 800 lbs of payload, two 175 lb adults you now have 450 lbs left of payload for a trailer you are left with ~4500 lbs of tow capacity using 10% of that on the tongue. It's not just people either - anything in your vehicle lowers your payload (the physical hitch itself, pets, coolers, accessories, ect)
Lots of people just look at pure tow capacity but ignore tongue weight/payload capacity of what they are using to two.
Most common F-150 configurations are actually limited on their tow capacity by payload over their advertised raw tow capacity. My 2012 F-150 farm truck has 1400 lb payload, minus two people and the hitch you're at ~ 900 lbs left for tongue weight so ~ 9000 lb pull load or ~4t
The other thing people neglect to consider is just where they tow and WHAT they tow. There's a big difference between a flat utility trailer and a square cargo trailer.
I guess my point is numbers aren't everything.
Source: 20 years in the professional trucking industry
You're absolutely right, and I would hope people have at least some awareness of this. (There's enough trailer accidents & wrecks to indicate against that, sadly.)
That said, looking at the numbers still makes some sense to get a rough understanding of the design space of these cars though. (And, well, the numbers I was replying to were confusing the heck out of me.)
(My source: German class BE driver's license = car with heavy trailers. You're limited to 0.75t trailer OR (car + trailer) ≤ 3.5t without that, in B. The E is a separate exam, both theoretical and practical. Aside from theory bits on how cars with trailers behave, you have to parallel park or T-turn a trailer to pass it.)
The taller the car the less safe it is for everyone around it.
And I rented an SUV once and was surprised by how small it was on the inside compared to the outside. Seemed way less practical than it could have been.
They are tall for ground clearance. Fantastic if you deal with a lot of off road situations. Like all other things discussed in this thread, it is underutilized.
Still, I prefer driving a awd suv in winter if I am at risk of being in a snowstorm.
> The bed was not large enough to readily hold full sheets of plywood
Many trucks are sold as not much more than vehicles to haul around some plants. But, what I would consider 'real' trucks tend to have 8' beds. My old Toyota Tundra was great at towing, had an 8' bed and was generally an all around great vehicle. It was long, but it was meant to be.
Eh, depends on your use case. I've got an F250 that I use for towing, and we specifically chose a standard bed rather than a long bed when we got it - and that's after having an 8' bed on our previous truck. The long bed is certainly nice sometimes (and was great for camping in!), but it's also pretty annoying whenever you're not actually using the bed length, which ends up being most of the time.
I haul plywood all the time, though; the shorter bed isn't really a problem. either you slide it in at an angle or you put the tailgate down and put it in that way with a strap.
There are two kinds of trucks. There are trucks that people buy for their capabilities, and there are trucks that people buy because driving a truck is part of their personality. The latter is far more popular, so your average truck ends up not being very good at doing truck things because it doesn’t have to be.
This is a lazy stereotype of people. But there’s a huge number of truck owners that only need a truck once a month, so they buy a truck. I’m one of these people and actively resisted buying a truck for years and finally caved in. I think it’s easy for folks, perhaps like you, to scoff and say that’s a minor inconvenience but it really isn’t. And sometimes it’s one of those things you can’t plan, or you go 6 months without using but then you have something come up where you use it daily for a week or two.
Did you buy a practical truck, or did you buy an SUV with a uselessly tiny bed tacked on? If the latter, then I wonder why you'd do that if you actually need a truck on a monthly basis. If the former, then you're not in the category I'm scoffing at.
Sheet goods fit in my truck, but I don’t want to load/unload them to that height. The bed is mostly good for dirty stuff I don’t want in the interior of any vehicle. Muddy boots, bags of concrete, kids sports gear, etc. for sheet goods and bigger heavy stuff I have a trailer and the truck the towing capacity for most needs. Occasionally I still need a heavy duty and just rent it.
The Tahoe I had last was a great as I keep tools and what dry in the truck. It only had 2 rows of seating and I don’t need more passenger space in my vehicle. My wife has the city vehicle SUV that we keep clean and use for passengers. Mine is the work / utility vehicle.
When I replaced it recently , the same trim level cost twice as much as a Silverado. And they all have 3 rows now, which means I lose most that space.
It’s all about trade offs. No vehicle is a perfect all rounder. I’d prefer the Tahoe but didn’t want to pay extra for it and have to yank out the 3rd row. I could own a Corolla but it would be overly inconvenient, and probably more expensive over time, to rent a larger vehicle every time I need it.
This is why I don't get trucks with tiny beds. I've had a few Chevy 1500's and those were great with the full length bed. I've got a 2nd generation Tacoma with its longer bed, and its just on the edge of too small for some things.
I see people with trucks with 4ft beds (like the weird Jeep thing) and they just seem useless. Gimme an 8ft bed, ideally a bit longer! I don't need a big cab, but I have a truck to be a truck!
(Really, my 2nd gen Toyota Tacoma is pretty close to perfect 95% of the time for me, especially with a cap on the back)
I'm not a car guy, buy there's a car podcast I really like where the host often tells people that even though they think they want a truck or an SUV, they probably need a minivan or a station wagon.
Sports cars are for the track, trucks are for hauling, and most drivers don't need either.
outback is typically the "wagon" subaru, but some people say with the newer redesign it's more SUV like. I have an impreza and it is the perfect size for me, wife, and dog with a roof top box. so cheap and easy to work on
Does he really respond with "you need" to people saying "I want?" That sounds insufferable.
If someone says "I need a truck or suv" then I understand saying "you may not need one." But someone saying they want one then someone else explaining what they need is just condescending.
> Sports cars are for the track, trucks are for hauling
Someone hasn't seen not the Dakar Rally, but the support trucks class for it. The rally cars need support. Replacement tires, suspension parts, engines. How do they get them? A fleet of support vehicles doing the same course. So then they made that a race as well. The Dakar Rally Truck edition features heavy vehicles weighing over 3,500 kg (7,716 lb) T4/5 racing across 8000km/5000 miles of sand, rocks, and desert.
I always encourage people to consider a two door if they're planning to use the truck for utility purposes.
I picked up a 70k mile 2011 Silverado from an Ontario government auction for $3000 and it's worked great. Tows my boat, carries my dirt bikes, and has enough room in the cab for me, my partner, and my dog between us. Who needs a backseat!
The Ford F-150 Lightning also failed and it was a full truck. It similarly was way too expensive, both for consumer and Ford, and had some issues with towing (range).
I had a friend who 'preordered' to get Cybertruck and he couldn't justify the price which was $140k CAD, so he bought a new Chevy pickup truck instead for $70-80k CAD.
I think a lot of the F-150s failure comes down to dealers. You can read myriad stories in the EV subreddits of dealers putting "market adjustments" on the Lightning and Mach-E of tens of thousands of dollars. It was if they didn't want them to sell, and I think we all know why (lower revenue from regular maintenance like oil changes and other fluids).
I have a buddy that has worked for corporate auto companies for 20 years. In most cities, dealerships make little to no money on the initial sale as competition has driven them down to dealer pricing. They make all their money on add ons (undercoating, paint protection), financing kick backs, warranties, and ongoing maintenance (this being the largest chunk). So there's probably a lot of truth to what you are saying.
Couple that with the fact that these were sold at a $20-$30k premium over a regular ICE truck and the fact that you not only couldn't get these at MSRP, but you had to spend an extra $10k on top and.. yeah...
I think F150 was the right vehicle but the wrong price point.
That’s a hard comparison point though when the ICE F-150 was the perfect substitute it was competing against. To me, that mostly proves that people didn’t want to go electric or pay the premium for it. The F150 design itself, does fit the bill as a truck doing what a truck needs to do.
I also bought a new Chevy truck recently for less than $40k USD, mid tier trim. Other trucks can be very affordable. The trim and budget options are quite wide. Tesla was never going to get to that as it requires volume.
There's also the dynamic of how many people buy pickup trucks who don't actually need full trucks. I'm not sure how much better Cybertruck would have sold if it actually performed better as one given the price (or more so if the Youtube reviewers gave it more appeal as a real truck to people who dont need one).
There's also a big market for luxury SUVs. But you could buy a nice BMW SUV for nearly half the price. So it was really just competing with higher end SUVs.
Which is why I believe it was mostly a price issue, not that there isn't a market for such a hybrid (half SUV / pretend truck) concept.
We have a lightning specifically because we need a full sized truck. Our RAM ICE's cargo capacity was barely over 1000 lbs (BMW i3: 800 lbs). The Ford EV's capacity is 2250lbs.
Also, the RAM's transmission overheated on gentle slopes.
The slate looks great (more cargo weight capacity than our full sized RAM ICE truck; half the price, much lower fuel costs, much more convenient to own).
If their second model is 250 class, we'd probably buy it. The Lightning can only tow 10,000lbs, so it's not great at hauling rock, etc -- it can do it, but only ~2.5 tons per load when you add in the weight of the trailer. This means we have to keep paying $100's to delivery services.
It'd be nice if that hypothetical 250 slate seated 5-6 people too. That'd let it be a backup kid hauler, like the lightning is. The lightning has more bells and whistles, but the aesthetics of the slate are much better, and I like the idea of just buying an aftermarket radio that does not integrate in with the power train.
Of course, if we didn't need a truck, we'd get a Rivian R1S/T. They're great for camping, etc, and what most people want when they buy a pickup truck as a family car.
The slate isn’t even comparable to a 150 class. Their whole thing was filling the small duty void in the US market, so I think it’d be a long time before they put out an 250 class.
No idea why it "failed" or was discontinued. From what i remember there was a huge waitlist to get one. I know lots of people that wanted on. It looked amazing IMO. I dont think it was a demand issue that caused it to be canceled
To be fair, if the waitlist length was to be believed, they were made when the vehicle was advertised with substantially better capabilities at substantially lower costs. A lot of people cancelled reservations when the actual specs were announced.
The initial hype is easy to get caught up in. I jump on the list with Slate on day one and ultimately decided I didn’t want it. That’s after years of wanting basically exactly what they’re building. I mostly decided the range was insufficient and it was too underpowered for towing (specs were not originally announced IIRC). I also wanted to see one in person first and never got that opportunity, I wish they did a body only roadshow leading up to the purchase decision, but ultimately was concerned it might just feel uncomfortable. I was early enough that I was able to secure the first month of delivery but declined it.
Funny thing is I don’t think it’s actually as cheap as many people expect. Because I think most people will be doing $5-10k of addons just to get some pretty base functionality and mods it comes without. Still think it’s a cool concept
The Lightning didn't really fail. It was the best selling EV pickup in the US by a large margin.
I think it was killed for political reasons: They repurposed the plant for AI datacenter batteries. I predict we'll have EV pickup trucks again if the 2028 election looks like the 2026 election.
Anyway, my next full sized pickup will also be a pure EV. If I can't get a Ford, then I'll get something else. (The lightning is far better at truck stuff than our late model GMC and Ram trucks were. Maybe I can get a truck from China + register in Mexico? Is that a thing?)
The new Lightning has a useless serial hybrid setup and gets 700 miles of range (who needs that?). I suspect it'll end up being like other serial hybrids, and an option to omit the gas engine will be available, and also substantially lower the price (or enable a larger battery). In the meantime, they'll tell Trump that he managed to kill EV pickup trucks.
I don't know, seems like there was a lot of demand for the Lightning, still not sure why Ford canned it.
If:
Fuel economy regulations had not been suspended and the electric vehicle credits hadn't expired I'll bet there would still be a Lightning.
Unlike the CyberTrash. The question (to me) is did Ford make a semi-rational short-term financial decision at the expense of its future competitiveness?
There are a lot of lenses through which to view the failure of the cybertruck: aesthetics, not enough truck not enough SUV, size, association of aesthetics with politics, etc. But I think the main one that is ignored is price.
The cybertruck was built in an era of high truck prices driven by zero interest rates. It bet on the price of trucks going up, just as the Ford F150 electric did. That was the wrong bet.
If it was a $40,000 truck, it would have a much bigger market despite all the other explanations of its failure. The market moved under it.
And there has been 31% cumulative inflation since the cybertruck launched, so perhaps I should have said if it had been a $49,000 truck. But either way, it’s clearly a luxury vehicle that was disproportionately affected by interest rates.
I think what you're saying is there's likely a significant number of "cheapest possible truck" purchases in this data that means the median price is actually _higher_ than the average - the median is dragged down by cheap farm trucks. Given that this $65k figure already excludes luxury trucks, that might be the case.
“New truck at any price” is a reference to the tax year-end buying surge of over-6000 lb vehicles for commercial purposes, and farms have the biggest tax breaks I believe. This will pull the average prices higher as the higher price protects more money from taxes.
I think another big one was the time from announcement to release.
When it was announced, for those who wanted an electric truck, it was going to be the only game in town. By the time Tesla delivered, there were several options already on the road from various companies. The people who really wanted an electric truck were already happy customers of another company by the time the cybertruck shipped. I see a fair number of Rivian, F-150 Lightning, and Hummer EVs around me.
When it comes to price, I expect to see a lot of Slate trucks once it starts shipping, with its low price.
Musk's politics? It was Biden that chose Unions over Environmentalism and American manufacturing. Almost everything spiraled after that, to the point where people were unabashedly claiming the whole Nazi salute thing. Looking back, it was wrong to let the crazies have their way.
Unions and environmentalism are two orthogonal issues. I'm not sure how you tie those two together.
There isn't even a need to discuss the intent of the salute; just look at who he donated to and who he supported as candidates. The problem is that buyers who want EVs are much, much more likely to align with the opposite ideology.
Not only that, Musk straight up decided to support Republican candidates who are vocally anti-environmental, anti-electrification, anti-incentives to shift consumer and industry change. He supported candidates and ideology that do not align with the buyers most likely to associate themselves with EVs.
I am not making a judgement here at all and I'm making zero comments on Musk's ideology or character, only that he made a poor branding decision by supporting a voting base and politicians that to not represent the folks most likely to buy a Tesla.
You don't need to argue the intent of the salute; you can just see which candidates he supported and donated to.
(It's fine to debate policy on things like incentives, but that is at least part of the reason why we see China making big leaps here because the government has aligned the incentives with buyers and manufacturers to make electrification the default)
The article even said it was a rounding error in terms of Tesla’s earnings, and expectations were tepid to begin with, and other brands such as Ford also failed with electric trucks. It is not as big of a deal as people have made it out to be. The cars are Tesla’s main business by far. The Cybertruck was a distraction basically.
Tesla projected selling 250k of these a year or $15-20b in revenue per year (20%+ of vehicle revenue for Tesla). This is a big number and would’ve added significant total vehicle sales. Instead, they’ve sold less than 70,000 total trucks over its production history. That’s why it’s a rounding error.
This is an absolute disaster and failure by any rational analysis. Its failure helped puncture “Tesla sales will continue to increase” and stock price justification storyline.
I think the aesthetics are quite important. One thing that set Tesla apart was that they didn’t build weirdmobiles. They started out when manufacturers made “alternative” vehicles look weird to set them apart. The Prius is the classic example. The Leaf was another obvious one. This weirdness has an important impact on the market, because it meant that you called attention to yourself when you were driving one. When you drove a Prius, you weren’t just getting great gas mileage, you were figuratively shouting to everyone around you “look at me, I drive a Prius!” (With an implication of “I’m saving the planet,” and a further implication of “and you’re not, you philisitine.”)
Then Tesla makes an electric car that’s just a car. Surely, they put their own design touches on it, but it mostly looked like an ordinary sedan. Then they made something that mostly looked like an ordinary SUV. And then more ordinary-looking models. They looked distinctive but they didn’t look weird and didn’t make a statement the way a Prius did.
And then they make the weirdest weirdmobile that there ever was. And released it right before making a loud statement of “I’m driving an Elon Musk car!” became really unattractive to a lot of people.
> They started out when manufacturers made “alternative” vehicles look weird to set them apart. The Prius is the classic example.
The 1st gen Prius (97-01) looked utterly conventional though, just like a slightly taller Yaris due to the batteries. It was the second generation onward that looked "weird", I think due to aerodynamicsmaxxing.
Tesla scaled up CyberTruck production before finding product market fit. Somewhere tween SUV and truck, and without a clear purpose. (I thought Tesla's initial market segment was going to focus on who ever buys Jeeps, boondocking, outdoorsy stuff.)
IMHO, CyberTruck would have been a modest hit if first production run was 100. Treat CyberTruck like Roadster. A niche vehicle for a niche market. Grant enthusiasts the earliest access to the best technology.
I honestly thought that was the plan.
It would have been the cheapest, fastest way for Tesla to de-risk all of the innovations used in CyberTruck. Major stuff that Tesla's could not gracefully, incrementally add to their other models (eg 48V).
And a perfect precursor of for the Robocab (neé Model 2), that would benefit most from the innovations.
Oh well. What do I know? Musk is a trillionaire and I am not, so clearly not much.
> (I thought Tesla's initial market segment was going to focus on who ever buys Jeeps, boondocking, outdoorsy stuff.)
I'm part of that market and was initially curious about the cybertruck but it was clear that tesla was totally unserious about building an actual 4x4 overlanding vehicle. I'm not sure EVs are even there yet for a true exploring vehicle since it's the extreme end of the range problem. There are places people go that are a couple hundred miles from the nearest supercharger, and I bet rock crawling kills the range like towing does.
The actual target market was probably a guy who spends 100k on a heavily upgraded Rubicon that never drives on dirt or gets a scratch, and happens to be a huge elon fanboy.
The overlanding issues are range and lack of major customizability. Overlanders rarely go more than 100mi out, what they love is the community and talking about all the upgrades they've done.
It didn't fail, more than Model S did, which saw the same fate.
It certainly did not "fail" on aesthetics. Few people would not take note of it, and it wasn't overly impractical. Some people hated DeLorean too, which just made it even more popular as well ...
The Model S was released when Tesla had sold a grand total of around 2,500 cars. It sustained the company for years and did most of the work bootstrapping them from tiny niche to a mass market car with the Model 3.
The Cybertruck was released when the company was selling millions of cars a year. It did pretty much nothing for their bottom line, didn’t break them into any new markers, and fell far short of expectations.
I think worse than just selling poorly, it served as a massive distraction to their development team, keeping them from releasing or updating other, more important cars.
I like the aesthetics a lot. It recalls the DeLorean, which is one of my favorite automotive designs.
But the cost is steep when I'm more in the market for an SUV or offroading vehicle than a truck. Not to mention that the extent to which Musk and Tesla are intertwined with politics is really not an easy sell for me.
Yeah I'm another who actually likes the rough idea of the aesthetics.
A sedan built by another company with similar aesthetics without completely ignoring...well basically everything from safety to build quality, would probably be on my potential list.
Also the things are built like utter shit. The panels come unglued, they rust in the rain, the engine, suspension and steering malfunction, the trim cracks, they leak, they burst into flames, then the door handles don't work when your Cybertruck bursts into flames.
I have to assume that politics or sunk cost are the only reasons people keep these things because they are objectively awful vehicles.
The absurdity is the best part of it. Finally it was something new, in a landscape where every car and truck has looked the same for the past 20 years. I'm happy someone designed and built something so crazy and different.
It probably would have been better had they not been mass produced, and maybe did a very limited quantity run - make it more like a collector item... I suppose thats what it'll be now. I see quite a few on the road, it takes away from the uniqueness.
Tesla's mission was never to built "something crazy and different". In fact it was kind of the opposite: when Model S came out, Tesla showed the world that EVs don't need to look or drive differently than traditional cars, because all EVs which came before Model S were either looked like a concept car or a small toy-like car. Tesla continued this success with Model 3 and Model Y. Then they started deviating from their mission and came up with Cybertruck. All they needed to do was to show the world that an EV truck can be just as practical and capable as a gasoline truck. They didn't need to go crazy with the design, make it bullet-proof, choose stainless steel which made the manufacturing harder... They shot themselves in the foot.
I find the auto market stale as well. However the CT could have been so much better if it sought to answer that demand with a positive vision rather being a reactionary revolt. Somehow a food critic has given the best critique that I've seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEcZSM6xS80
I really agree with you here. I would never buy one (vw buzz is more my style) but I loved it in a weird “thank god something new and unique” way. Like my love for good brutalist office buildings even if I’d never want to live in a brutalist home.
The amount of hate it gets has been yet another clear indication to me just how annoyingly tribal people are. It shows you’re in the in-group and definitely-a-righteous-good-guy if you hate on the cybertruck. Not hating on the cybertruck is basically admitting you’re a fascist (I’ve had a friend literally tell me this non-jokingly). I think that’s really what 80% of the hate comes down to.
Hating the cybertruck might be tribal for some people, but definitely not everyone. I thought it was stupid and ugly from the moment it was announced, and I still think it's stupid and ugly, and it is demonstrably bad at the job of "being a truck".
You can celebrate Tesla for trying something new while still hating the actual thing that they tried for being bad.
I remember feeling that it was ugly when it was initially released, and then saw repeated messages on HN from people who said it "looked better than you think in person". I assumed they were right, and that it would actually come out for usd40k and have seating for 6.
lol, no. I actually saw one at a client's and beside being uglier than what a 5yo would be able to draw, it was also built like shit. I'm talking about going to the hardware store for aluminum panels and bend them, cut with scissors and some soldering job here and there kind of bad.
thank god these monstruosities were forbidden in europe
The Ioniq 5 leans into the same aesthetic too and that car is everywhere now, so it's not like there's anything fundamentally keeping that from working.
Full disclosure: I work for a competitor to Tesla so I'm a bit biased.
The Cybertruck I thought was initially kind of neat but when you try to use one as a truck you quickly can see some glaring problems that most people who buy a truck want. Towing with an EV is terrible. I've heard there's power stations with pull throughs but havent' seen them personally. The truck bed isn't practical for anything but a lawn mower. When I ride in one it rides like a car. It doesn't look good dirty. I just think they were going for warthog from Halo and thought the rest would work out. It's also super expensive for all these issues. It's a hobby vehicle. A toy.
I think Tesla is struggling personally. The marketing tactics of showcasing cars we'll never be able to buy just to cause a scene. Don't get me wrong the new Roadster my jaw dropped and I agree with Elon now that SpaceX and Tesla are the 'same' company I think it's great but let's be realistic. Most people want cars that are cheap, dependable and sort of cool. Not everyone can afford multiple cars, and a corvette that isn't feasible. Like I said I work for a competitor (GM) and I fear China is going to eat our lunch. Unless we make infrastructure for charging better and make it a no brainer.
I would buy an electric car tomorrow, I have access to cheap charging, and I don't even do long commutes. But there is zero chance I want a spyware car that's like another cell phone.
The U.S. is being protectionist because of Chinese cars that can spy on U.S. soil-- just do the right thing and stop all the car spying nonsense. Require manufacturers to open the code and let us even develop alternatives.
I can't upvote you high enough for this. GM just paid a huge amount for accidentally selling driving info to data brokers I'm sure you've heard. SDV is a strange concept to me. I'm not on the engineering teams doing that work but there are lots of people kicking up dust about exactly your point.
I have an electric Hyundai and you can disable all internet connectivity fairly easily. I have mine disabled and the car works fine. It never connects to any internet connection. I suspect that most other modern cars are similar. The firmware is closed source, but it works fine. It supports CarPlay and Android Auto, which are effectively open standards, so you can replace the infotainment system with whatever you want. This is standard for modern cars.
Has anyone checked that "disabled" actually means disabled? The last 20 years of surveillance creep in computing tells us that these check boxes are often meaningless.
IDK. Grok bot works with Tesla’s grok so today I learned I can just ask how’s my house is doing. It responded how much solar I’m making vs consuming, hows batteries are doing, is garage door open and flagged that my heatpump water heater is off (i shut it earlier because it can get little loud).
Yes you can sort of get there with Siri and HomeKit, bug nowhere close to sophistication.
Here in Australia, it's interesting how well the Tesla cars are still selling.
The model Y is still the best selling EV despite the wide choice of other brands. BYD out sell them in aggregate, but Tesla are holding their own pretty well. Of course, all the Tesla cars here are made in the Shanghai Gigafactory, but still, I don't think Chinese brand dominance is a forgone conclusion. I think the real danger is if American protectionism makes Tesla feel like they don't need to innovate any more.
Software is everything when it comes to EV's. As an American, I've had many years of experience with software from around the world. No one makes software more suited for Americans, than other Americans.
The UX of the car software is only a small portion. The actual car has a lot of software which isn't cultural.
The dashboard and UX of the car can be tailored to a culture, while the onboard processing remains the same - it's just one software update away. This is sort of a silver lining of removing physical dials and buttons and going all in with touch-screen.
just compare the landing pages for taobao or baidu to the western equivalent. UX for the asian market has wildly different expectations and best practices
How well does the self driving work over there? That's the real innovation and personally it seems to work well enough in America so I'm curious what your experience is with that.
That doesn’t sound right, why are some people same to get it and not others. As far as I’m aware you can go buy a Tesla in Australia and enable it via subscription.
Only on later HW3 cars. Older cars can still buy the subscription but get limited features (summon, etc, not full self driving). Apparently there’s work underway to support older cars
China is bringing their more expensive cars first to make money once the market gets saturated then we might see more domination as they try to compete for more market share
> now that SpaceX and Tesla are the 'same' company
Did I miss something big on the stock market or are these actually still two different public companies? How do the shareholders of both of these (ostensibly different, kind of unrelated) large publicly-held companies feel about them being conflated like this? Is there any historical precedent for this situation?
1. Power. He can amass more power by concentrating it in SpaceX. There was a lot of financing needed getting Tesla to mass produce vehicles… where Musk likely conceded more power (and money) than he wanted.
2. SpaceX (sans xAI and Xitter) is the one business he’s got really generating a profit and likely will be able to continue that trend. It lets him paper over financial issues that would show up in the balance sheets of individual companies.
They are still distinct public companies and they want to merge them. And even today the amount of cross mingling between those two entities however is quite significant. You would not necessarily know that they are independent from each other.
The roadster uses Space X propulsion tech, the cybercab uses starlink, grok is in all Tesla cars, both companies share Terafab. But then Tesla also supplies batteries and cybertrucks to Space X etc.
... and to offload a ton of bad luck onto retail bagholders.
Once the AI bubble pops, SPCX will collapse, but everyone in on the game will have gotten much more thanks to selling their stock than they'd ever put in in either SpaceX or Twitter.
As I understand, electric motors deliver instant maximum torque. Isn't that advantageous for towing? You can get a good list of pros and cons from an LLM with a prompt like this: "towing with electric motor vs ice engine".
What is your opinion on the upcoming Tesla Semi? I expect that it will be successful, useful, and efficient.
Nobody expects an impressive 1/4 mile time from a vehicle towing a trailer. That's not what makes EVs bad at towing.
My towing-capable gas vehicle sees at worst a 30% decrease in range from towing my camping trailer, and my towing-capable diesel vehicle sees closer to a 10% decrease in range.
A while back, I read a comment on here from someone who lived in a trailer full-time as a digital nomad. They were also dedicated to driving an EV. They towed their small trailer with their Model Y. I grant you, the Model Y is not optimized for towing the way that the Cybertruck (ostensibly) is, but they described the process of travelling between Grand Junction, Colorado, and Moab, Utah, a distance just over 110 miles. With the trailer, they had to drive to Cisco, about halfway in between, drop the trailer, drive back to Grand Junction, recharge fully, drive back again, pick up the trailer, and drive the remaining 60 or so miles to Moab, where they could recharge again. Because without the trailer, they could drive the entire 1-way distance 3 times over without recharging. With the trailer, they could not make the whole trip once.
That is pretty bad. Probably a combination of the smaller battery, and a very non-aerodynamic trailer. Of course, an ICE truck could do it without too much trouble, but that's largely because most tow-focused ICE vehicles are wildly inefficient compared to EVs and are discarding lots of unused capacity every time you drive them without towing near maximum load. Not a big deal when diesel is cheap, but now, less so.
If you think about how much excess power your diesel is wasting when you aren't hauling its kinda crazy. When you changed the total weight, and thus total energy required in the system, 50-70%, you only started using 10% more energy.
I remember my family driving long distances in a 1980s VW Diesel, we could barely climb hills but we got 50mpg.
It is reductive to say it is terrible. The issue is that the current range we are putting in trucks, adjusted for the range loss from towing a large trailer, is insufficient.
The Tesla Semi proves that this is the issue: with an extremely large battery and high-speed charging, the Semi solves these problems.
A regular truck that can TOW 300 miles would certainly not be "terrible for towing."
> A regular truck that can TOW 300 miles would certainly not be "terrible for towing."
Agreed. A fairly typical gas half-ton gets 300 miles from a tank. If an EV can get that distance and recharge in like half an hour it would be a pretty great truck.
It's not hard to run the number and see how likely it is (spoiler alert: not very).
The first easy number is the sheer amount of energy, diesel has an energy density of 10.7kWh/L, so a 30gal tank holds 1460kWh. By comparison a silverado EV (probably the best currently available EV tower short of a semi) has a 215kWh battery.
The second more complicated number and why diesel is so good at towing (and other high-power applications) is that diesel gets more efficient when loaded, by a factor of 2-ish: an unloaded diesel might only use ~20% of the fuel it burns to actually move stuff, or on a 30gal you get around 300kWh out of your 1460kWh tank, but that will climb to 35~40% as the load increases if kept in the efficiency range, so towing you might have 500~550kWh out of 1460kWh available to actually move your load.
There's no such thing on an EV, there's some variation but load isn't really a factor, pretty much just the band, so your Silverado gets 205kWh usable at the wheels unloaded and the same loaded. Therefore all the towing losses (rolling resistance and drag) come straight out of your range.
And short of a breakthrough on batteries it's difficult to add more battery capacity, the battery already accounts for a third of a silverado's weight and a significant fraction of its internal volume. Getting a 500kWh battery in a truck is currently impossible: that's the sort of capacity you find on semis (european EV semis cluster around 550~650).
And then of course you have the charge concern, charging a 500kWh battery in half an hour requires a megawatt charger running at more than 1MW, and the ability to ingest that in your pack (on 800V battery tech that's 1250 amps, which is within MCS specs but the vehicle side is pretty damn rough).
> As I understand, electric motors deliver instant maximum torque. Isn't that advantageous for towing?
Your understanding is not wrong, but quantity of torque is a minor piece of what matters, so that doesn't move the needle.
Towing lowers the range of an EV by so much that it becomes nearly useless. This is much more important with an EV than an ICE, because EV charging is less available and takes much longer.
It's understandable that you might not fully understand the magnitude of the pros and cons from your LLM prompt, those sorts of responses usually assume certain levels of experience and familiarity with the topic. It'll make more sense when you get older!
Towing for traveling, you mean. Around town, a Lightning with a big utility trailer is still good for over 100 miles, and that meets the use case for a lot of small businesses that need to tow. We get a bunch of them over on the Lightning forum. They love the truck, and they love how inexpensive and convenient it is. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth (and a scramble to find funds to quickly fill out their fleet) when Ford announced the cancellation.
> quantity of torque is a minor piece of what matters, so that doesn't move the needle
I know of approximately nobody who thinks this, who actually tows anything meaningful. Somethning like a 6.2 naturally aspirated Ford V8 in an F250 is a chore, it's loud, works very hard, goes nowhere with any urgency. This is why people love diesels -- torque. And an EV takes that to the next level. The towing is sublime.
Yes, we need bigger batteries though so people can do long distance road trips with travel trailers. That niche isn't a great use case today.
I don't think the towing aspect matters much: I live in a semi-conservative rural area of the US with a lot of truck drivers, and about 90% of pickup trucks are used as glorified minivans / SUVs anyway that are kept clean at all times. The only pickup trucks I see towing anything are much older trucks (late 80s-early 2000s). Very old 80s Toyota Hilux / Ford Rangers are a common sight as well for filling the truck bed which carries a lot more volume that even modern trucks (most of the drivers don't care about going over the weight limit).
The Cybertruck failed because it's an awfully designed vehicle, along with all of the baggage of being associated with Elon Musk's politics (whether you agree with them or not).
I think it matters. There are lots of people who have a camper or a boat or some ATVs or whatever. Maybe they only take the camper out once or twice a year, and so you never see it hooked up. However, on that one week per year, they do need it to be able to tow.
Gas/Diesel trucks lose range when towing too, but dealing with a shorter range gas truck isn't too big of a problem on a trip beyond the extra cost. Gas stations are everywhere and it takes 5 minutes to fill up. At most gas stations, filling up while towing a trailer isn't too big of a problem. Even if your truck only had a 150 mile range while towing, it would only be a minor annoyance, and the reality is that you'll probably get at least 250 miles out of a tank.
If you're towing with an electric though, you probably are looking at less than 150 miles. Now every couple of hours you have to stop for probably an hour or so, even with a fast charger, because you're probably going to want to charge the truck to full, not 80%. You're also probably driving somewhat out of your way to hit charging stations that frequently if you're not in a very populated area.
Make it make sense. A silverado Turbomax can tow 12k and the bed can handle cargo up to 2500lbs and it's around 45k and a cybertruck easy 85k. Don't get me wrong some of what I said was opinionated.
spec for spec though. The majority of trucks sold are the turbomax spec a turbo charged 4 cylinder. About 20% of them go to fleet sales.Higher trims yes Cybertruck has some good options but go see what WHistlin Dixie did to his and you'll understand more of my opinion.
> I think Tesla is struggling personally. The marketing tactics of showcasing cars we'll never be able to buy just to cause a scene
I think as a car company they're doing alright. They sell two of the most popular vehicles on the road. But the valuation of TSLA is 15-20x what it would be if they were valued at a car company, which is why you get over-the-top demos like the roadster.
I explained this in my other comment but I'll paste it here:
The thing is that ICE vehicles are so inefficient to begin with, but a towed trailer needs the same amount of energy regardless of what is towing it.
Imagine a trailer takes 1 unit of energy to move, and ICE truck takes 5 units to move itself, and EV truck takes 1 unit to move itself.
The ICE truck towing it would go from 5 units to 6 units, reducing the range by 16%.
The EV truck would now go from 1 unit to 2 units, reducing the range by 50%.
So the better your efficiency, the worse you are at towing. Ideally EV trucks would have such a huge battery that even when the range is reduced by 50%, it is still as long as a gas truck's range, but modern battery technology is still too sucky to achieve this.
An ICE vehicle isn't less efficient because the frame itself takes more energy to move, it's less efficient because the engine burns off a high percentage of its energy as waste heat.
But that will be true regardless of what the load is. If the ICE truck takes 5 units of energy to pull itself compared with 1 unit for the electric truck, that implies that the the truck chassis only actually requires 1 unit to move, but the ICE engine burns off 80% of its energy as waste heat. The engine is only 20% efficient.
Now if you start pulling a trailer, you have (in total) 2 units of energy worth of load. But if the ICE engine is still only 20% efficient, then it will take 10 units to pull both, rather than 6.
I can believe that this effect is real (electric cars suffering more range loss when towing), but it seems to require an explanation beyond this one.
It is more complicated with ICE though because the efficiency changes with load amount, and what power output an ICE is most efficient in can be designed with towing in mind. Ive seen 90s trucks that got 18 MPG empty on a good day, but then when loaded with twice or more the vehicle's curb weight on a trailer merely drop to 17 MPG.
Generally this is only true for ICE with an abundance of extra power to start with, but that is basically every truck and most other cars for the last 25 years.
It's the effeciency curve. ICEs are more efficient with heavier loads - more fuel goes to useful work.
There's also that electric cars have a marginally better drag coefficients for a few reasons - ICE vehicles have a bot less incentive and they need to use more air for cooling - so the drag from a trailer will be worse, as a percentage extra, on the average electric vehicle.
ICE are most efficient in terms of energy in -> rotation energy out near their peak torque output for a ton of reasons:
* cylinder filling is more efficient at maximum output request (on naturally aspirated engines operating in vacuum, due to less simple pumping loss, on turbocharged or supercharged engines, due to less wasted energy producing charge air and generally more optimized air/exhaust exchange). in short, air gets into the cylinder more efficiently in the first place at high torque requests
* combustion is more complete at high cylinder filling; not only does more air get into the cylinder, but it also burns more completely
* friction losses matter less at higher torque, especially on larger engines
Almost every ICE complexity advancement over the years is to hack around these basic properties: VVL and VVT to optimize pumping, direct injection, stratified injection, and dynamic compression hackery to get around cylinder filling efficiency, and cylinder deactivation / variable displacement to avoid friction and pumping loss from unnecessary engine size. but while ICE engines have made huge strides, they're still more efficient when they're loaded.
And note that this is efficiency, not absolute consumption - of course you'll consume more at higher load still, but the ratio is better. Combine this with the aerodynamics of most ICE pickup trucks and you have a scenario where ICE trucks frequently lose very little fuel economy / actual consumption when towing a trailer.
Thanks, this makes sense. Part of my confusion was the RPM for peak torque output isn't the full condition for it, cause you're only getting peak torque at full throttle of course. And a towing truck is at higher throttle than an unburdened one.
Efficient in this situation means units of fuel per units of work.
Of course an ICE uses more fuel in absolute terms on a higher load than a lower one. But the proportion of fuel wasted compared to fuel turned into propulsion improves as load is increased (at least up to a point, maybe not all the way to absolute maximum load).
Electric systems also have efficiency curves, but they are less drastic within the primary load range.
The range on my diesel truck drops in half when I pull my trailer. Roughly similar to an EV towing. It also happens in winter (not quite as big a drop). Thats what most folks care about. But people like to overstate it as a dramatic downside of EVs.
But the range on the Cybertruck is starting much lower, so that halving is a lot more painful.
I frequently tow between Washington and Montana, and I only have to fill up the F-350 once or twice when loaded. You would need to recharge a loaded Cybertruck 5+ times on that same route. My 11 hour drive just turned into a 15 hour drive in ideal conditions. And I don't think there are the latest superchargers available on most of the route, so the time spent charging is likely much higher.
Don't get me wrong, I like EVs and have a Model 3 as my daily driver. But I would never get rid of the gasser given today's battery tech with the number of roadtrips we take.
Regular people aren’t towing freight. More likely a camper or a boat or other recreational toy. Shipping those via train whenever you wanted to go on a trip would be absurd.
Probably more like 7-10k lbs, so 3-5 tons, depending on the specifics of the trailer. More if it's a fifth-wheel type.
Yes, clearly there are cases when it makes sense to ship by train, otherwise they wouldn't exist. I can't tell if I'm not getting my point across, or you just want to be pedantic, but the point is that most people who own the capability of transporting something, will transport it themselves.
Because the numbers are a bit off. I've towed a lot, gas trucks do not lose 15% when towing. My old F150 went from 18mpg to 10mpg. My super duty went from 16mpg to 8mpg.
The advantage is that gas is so energy dense we just routinely equip trucks with 35+ gallon fuel tanks. There's no battery option equivalent yet.
I think what it actually says is that EV has short ranges.
If a car held gas worth of 750mi of driving and towing would reduce it to 500mi, and your actual driving distance was significantly less than both, the difference would be unnoticed.
If a car held gas worth of just 500mi with extremely well optimized aero and driveline loss minimization and highly efficient regen, and a towed trailer would absolutely ruin that, and your driving distance was too close to the diminished range, you will notice that.
If your EV held like 12500kWh of charge for like 3000 miles of range, and it was mostly for Costco runs, towing range penalties will not be among your top concerns.
The EV trucks usually do more like 30-40 minute charges due to the large battery. But also, gas vehicles don't do 5 minute fillups either, AAA says average is about 15 min.
When people stop to refuel on a road trip they typically stop for ~15 minutes. According to AAA, who has no vested interest in making an argument on refueling times of gas vs electric, unlike commenters in discussions like this.
That's part of the answer, but the other part is that towing is going to reduce range significantly regardless of your fuel. With a gas or diesel vehicle that's not a big deal, because you can fill back up in 5 minutes or less. With an EV, it takes 20+, and the fast charging locations are less plentiful than gas stations. If you're not towing, that doesn't matter too much, but when you have to charge 2-3 times as often due to towing, it becomes a real issue.
Fast charger stations also rarely make allowances for cars with trailers. You often have to detach the trailer in order to get into the charging bay or park across multiple.
This would only make sense if the EV efficiency gain were due to lightness of the vehicle or better aerodynamics. It's definitely not the first, and don't imagine the second is a big factor but maybe I'm wrong. I'd even expect EV to help here because a heavy trailer takes more energy to get moving that can be partially recouped when regen-braking.
Is it just that these EV trucks don't have multiple gears to tune themselves for towing? Like how many EV cars are geared for city speeds but suffer on the highway. I know dual-motor ones have different ratios, but that's still 2 speeds vs 6-10. Edit: Could also be about engine tuning.
The second is in fact a big factor. The vast majority of a car's drag is aerodynamic drag since it grows quadratically with speed; rolling resistance and stuff are much smaller at highway speeds. In order to compensate for the tiny capacity of batteries, EVs try really hard to squeeze out better efficiency in aerodynamics and other sources. That's why EVs have flush door handles and stuff.
That would explain it if it's large. But if this matters so much, why don't the diesel trucks make all the same resistance/aerodynamics improvements? The only EV-specific advantage there is not needing air intake... again I have to say, intake drag doesn't sound huge but maybe I'm wrong.
The large fleet operators do care about this and do go out of their way to improve aero. Look at a UPS 18-wheeler and you'll see trailer skirts, no bug deflectors, window buffeters, etc.
Ironically, the private owner/operators are most often the ones installing accessories to make their trucks look cool and sacrificing immensely for it.
Vehicles have two primary components of resistance, air drag and rolling resistance. Rolling resistance is a function of weight, and air drag is a function of the frontal surface area (and to a lesser extent the total body surface area). For a small passenger car, rolling resistance is much lower than for a large truck, so they get much greater efficiency gains from reducing air drag. For a large truck, the rolling resistance is so much greater that the gains from reducing air drag are not large. That's why big tractor trailers don't have the same optimized aerodynamics that a tesla or a prius has.
1. No real market pressure — if you cared about fuel burn rate you wouldn't be looking into buying a truck in the first place. EVs on the other hand live or die by their battery range.
2. When optimizing, you want to start with the biggest problem and work your way down. ICEs are so laughably inefficient that improving aerodynamics just won't have that much of an impact.
A large amount of the energy of an ICE is wasted as heat and noise. Some of that is a constant factor that isn't sensitive to load. So when increase load, it doesn't make as much of a difference to energy used.
By contract in EVs, much more of the energy is going towards moving the vehicle and therefore both weight and air resistance greatly affect the amount of energy use.
The heat and noise do scale with how much gasoline you burn. That's part of the whole ICE being less efficient than battery in terms of input chemical energy vs output mechanical energy. It cancels out when you're calculating regular vs towing range. The engine is the same efficiency either way.
The efficiency is usually defined as the energy the car can use to move itself over the energy going in (electrical, or chemical for gas). If an ICE is 20% efficient then using 5 units means you get one unit out. Towing a trailer that doubles the load means you need 2 units out, which means you need 10 units in. So you get half the range either way.
The engine doesn't get more efficient just because you hook a trailer to it: it's still 20% efficient regardless.
I think you're missing the cost of ownership in your efficiency calculation. EV's without incentives cost a lot compared to ICE so much so that the savings don't equate usually until I hear year 4 of ownership. Now that's getting better I mean look at the new Bolt or Ford Fathom 30k Retail usually (which I think is where there's a lot of room in small midsize trucks and EV's)
> EV's without incentives cost a lot compared to ICE
This is highly variable. My Lightning was cheaper than the ICE version I had been shopping for. It has been better for my wallet from day 1. And it has depreciated less. The credits did distort the market for a while, though, that is for certain.
Once I discovered that the entire EV battery holds only 2 gallons-of-gas-worth of energy (roughly about 65kwh) , all of the range issues made a lot more sense.
I don’t think this is true at all. If towing the trailer doubles the energy required at the wheels (and both engines maintained the same efficiency under the additional load) then both ranges would be halved.
In practice, diesel engines can become more efficient under additional load, and it obviously varies between models but it’s not a 16% vs 50% difference like your example.
The reason EVs don’t tow well is they don’t have a high enough range to begin with. Diesels have nearly double the starting range of an equivalent EV, and storing additional fuel on board is an option.
So the EV still beats the ICE vehicle threefold (2 units vs 6 units), it just _feels_ worse (half as efficient as without a trailer) so you declare it _is_ worse.
With that type of reasoning, let me guess, the competitor you work for is General Motors?
EV beats ICE in isolation but without just as much charging stations as petrol stations the advantage is theoretical. Also you need faster charging too (I heard BYD latest tech can do this, can Tesla just license?)
A federal law could easily fix this though, but you would need an administration that cares about climate change or at least about EV
I think the whole thing about climate is kind of disingenuous but that's another topic. Mining the minerals for EV's is utter strip mining and terrible. China is selling it's future away. Look at the story of Mountain Pass Mine in California and do 20-50x that in China at less efficiency.
Efficiency was brought up to explain the real problem, range. I didn't fill up between Reno and SF in my F350 towing a massive trailer and still had plenty of fuel to spare. A cybertruck would've barely made it past Sacramento with a much lighter load and would've taken much longer to fill up.
Tahoe to Sac for sure isn't bad. The uphill section before that adds 2-3 gallons by itself when I'm towing though (compared to a flat route the same distance and speeds). IIRC net fuel economy winds up being similar to a flat stretch (even the downhill stretch burns a lot of energy in your brakes and has enough flat and uphill segments -- slightly ameliorated with regenerative braking, but I don't think it moves the needle enough).
How is your Rivian by the way? Is it in any way comparable to a cybertruck or is it just far and away better?
IMO it is worse. And I thought I said where i worked in my original comment. You just can't get the range to work on EV's and towing (my personal opinion) large pickups have big gas tanks and it's quick and easy to fill up. It's all about ergonomics. Yes an EV with a full battery vs a ICE with a full tank EV will always be more 'efficient' but day to day it doesn't add up.
Ergonomics and ease of use are why people get cars. Ergnomics right now to me are reason why EV's in America don't sell well. Infrastructure. If every apartment complex and shopping mall had chargers or we had a novel way to charge a battery like an ICE engine then yeah it will take off. Culturally though I think we just love gas stations, emissions and pollusion.
The topic is a now-discontinued EV truck, or two of them if you're counting the Lightning, and a real measured range drop when towing. And GM makes EV trucks too. So can we please make this honest and not a fanboy fight?
The charging port is on the rear of the Cybertruck, which means if you have a trailer attached, you would have to find a charger with a long enough cable, or one that lets you pull all the way through.
If the charging port were on the front of the vehicle, you could pull straight in, but now your trailer is probably blocking traffic.
Of course you could disconnect and reconnect the trailer, which adds an extra 5-10 extra minutes to your 15-40 minute charge time depending on your battery level.
In Europe at least newer Tesla charging stations are drive through charging stations in pairs. Unless it is crowded, the trailer is parked in the charging spot behind you. Only if it is crowded do you have to disconnect.
Pulling a trailer with an EV is very common around here (Norway).
Aging Wheels on YouTube basically concluded that EV towing from a handling perspective is actually quite superior, but the charging and range is so much worse that depending on what you're doing it's likely a dealbreaker.
His channel is a highly recommended watch for anyone who is curious. He also did some very easy to understand tests of range for towing comparing the impacts of the weight of what you're towing vs the wind resistance.
> I've heard there's power stations with pull throughs but havent' seen them personally.
FWIW Rivian has pull through charging stations along I-5, so they do exist. In general, their charging infrastructure is very reliable, uses renewable energy (matching), and is fast (even for my non-Rivian EV) and is not associated with a fascist.
People intuit cost per mile, if states stop making it illegal for Tesla to charge less insurance themselves with FSD, it’s possible they win.
China can produce 7M more vehicles annually than the entire world (including them) needs, so the world has to decide whether to give up all their manufacturing to let china do it, or china has to increase worker’s rights and pay so that they can afford to buy more vehicles (their currency and financing tactics essentially reduce purchasing power at scale to fund their manufacturing infrastructure).
Towing with EV isn’t exactly truck or Tesla problem. So I kinda agree for those particular cases it’s pretty bad choice. But most don’t do that and just like big cars with utility.
All EV trucks suck at pulling, so that's a category problem. It's designed to ride like a car, as truck dynamics of leaf spring suspension on a solid rear axle isn't actually good technically. The feel, though, is a personal preference. It is not a hobby nor a toy: it is fully functional as a truck other than for pulling long miles. It is way more capable than other trucks on certain dimensions. Other trucks are outrageously expensive with similar features. I feel like you are biased.
How do you not understand the trickle down effect of motorsports, given that you work for a competitor? The tech in the roadster trickles down to normal cars (e.g., its drivetrain advancements), and possibly to off-planet rovers (Earth is the brutal case to test the equipment on, but I don't know enough about the potential to reuse here).
you lost me here, laughing. Nobody calls them that. You’ve never driven an EV long distance, much less actually towed with one.
I’ve towed 5000+ lbs, including a mid-size SUV on a trailer, cross-country with another EV half of a dozen times. Stopping a lot is bit tedious, but it drives so well. The Rivian and Silverado both have big packs and work well. The Lightning didn’t have enough range for long-distance towing.
Moving a trailer around in town or taking a boat or camper to a lake nearby would be comfortable and the torque makes the drive effortless.
If you stay in first gear and avoid long downhills, you can tow almost anything with almost anything.
I did some towing of loaded ~1500lb trailers with a 1.6 liter Corolla twenty years ago and it was sort of OK... Not great, not terrible. Requires some patience and some extra planning ahead.
This take is widespread on this venture capital fan forum, but it's both incorrect and a retreat. The Cybertruck was poorly thought out, sold teribly, and is now dead. By example it has discouraged future diversity in automotive design.
Good design that breaks the mold and then succeeds for that reason is what changes the world. Bad design that starts from the desire to be different without understanding the forces that led to the preexisting equilibrium is what we got. If you start out with hundreds of billions of dollars you can fake it for much longer, but if your premise is fundamentally economically incorrect then it will only last as long as you can subsidize it.
It is impossible for someone's statement of preference to be incorrect. You may differ in your opinion, but the gp is not wrong for having their own opinion.
I read their comment as meaning, "If you really care about design that doesn't look like anything else, you should be wary of the Cybertruck, as its commercial failure actually discourages future innovation in automobile design."
They weren't stating their preference for the form of the vehicle itself. They were stating their preference for designs that break the mold. But if what you desire is cars that break the mold, the Cybertruck has set the world back.
My understanding is more that economy and safety standards have driven us towards these aerodynamic and impact absorbing shapes. I may be quite wrong though!
The cybertruck had good enough safety ratings, but kinda just decided to not care about the aerodynamics and economy side. Which freed Elon up a lot in terms of style.
Personally, I also agree that it was refreshing to see something bold out there on the road. It's just that the final product looked just 'off' enough to make it look bad in the end.
Like, it's wheel base is about 6 inches too long and the ride height is about 6 inches too low, making it look a bit toddler-y to my eyes. The bed was also just not practicable and too small (something I see on a lot of trucks these days). The speed was good, the torque was great, the giant screen you can't feel when driving was not. The seats were uncomfortable for my build.
Overall, the car was a statement, one that just barely missed the mark to my eyes, but it did miss
The US safety ratings are incredibly easy to game. I have a sibling who used to be a crash test engineer, and we used to get bored of them endlessly ranting about it at family gatherings.
In many other countries it wasn’t even street legal because it couldn’t meet minimum safety standards.
> The bodywork of the vehicle is particularly problematic: the sharp-edged, rigid stainless steel panels of the Cybertruck violate EU safety regulations, which primarily serve to protect vulnerable road users.
Except it is very ugly and the triangle profile created a impractically large windshield and caused the bed cover to completely block the rear window when closed.
Thr angular Cybertruck design was actually not primarily for show. It comes from the fact that its body is made from cold-rolled, full-hard stainless steel that can't be stamped into arbitrary shapes. Ordinary car bodies are made from steel that can be stamped but is not stainless, so they require paint.
The original design was that the body would be made from these panels. The exoskeleton structure.
The Cybertruck that was released did not have that, instead the panels are just normal body parts connected to a standard car frame underneath - like any other car.
They didn't go for looks though. The whole premise was ease of manufacturing. An interesting idea that soon proved to be invalid. But they pushed forwards anyway for some reason (and we all know that reason).
Meanwhile all other Tesla models look exactly the same. Doesn't help that people buy them like the other appliances in their lives, meaning that they're almost all white too.
I remember when this thing came out how Walter isaacson came out with his biography treating it as if it was Steve Jobs envisioning the personal computer, celebrating the design process as if the cybertruck’s success was a foregone conclusion.
I lost all my respect for isaacson at that time as it was clear he’d entered a bubble himself.
This also seems along with a lot of other recent moves to reveal that money is getting tighter over there.
That’s wild, I’ve never heard that. And to be clear my issue was not that I’m a perma Elon hater, it was Isaacson’s total impartiality to this biography and seeming desire to get swept up in the bubble which has at least in part been debunked.
I can't find the post where the guy wanted something like Uber, but the driver shows up in a beat up pickup truck, and just agrees with everything you say, "Hell yeah, brother!"
Yet again I consider the disparities between the US market, as described by commentors, and the UK market. Cybertrucks never made it to road legality here, and would probably have required an HGV license (if the maximum manufacturer permitted vehicle+load weight is over 3500kg).
The US style pickup is pretty rare. There are some Ford Ranger/Raptors, which look comically large but are apparently smaller than the common F150 (??). People who need a truck bed get a Ford Transit or similar with the bed variant.
Agricultural use cases are handled with actual tractors (who can use the cheaper "red" diesel!)
The pickup in the US is a staple of the plumber, roofer and other tradesmen, and as you say; this use case as a tradesman’s tool is broadly filled by the panel van in Europe.
To some extent you even see this in New York too. Certainly there’s a need for these vehicles in rural areas where road conditions may be poor or absent altogether and the work needs done regardless.
The cybertruck on the other hand isn’t a work vehicle, it’s bought by the same people who buy the super kitted out models and who have no interest in using it for work, let alone taking the thing off road.
Ultimately I think of it as the modern Delorean, but I don’t think it will engender the same level of good will when it ages out and becomes less common due to the increasingly negative profile of Musk and his connections to the politics in which the vehicle was created.
Basically every trade in Europe seems to use either vans or vehicles like a Mercedes Sprinter with a flatbed (don't know the proper term. Those still seat 3 people and have a huge bed, all with a regular license.
If you would be using it just locally, as opposed for road trips, note that it has an LFP battery. LFP batteries are perfectly happy to be always charged to 100% and discharged down to 10% (lower is OK but most people want to keep some spare in case they aren't able to charge when they expected to).
Lithium nickel batteries suffer accelerated aging at high charge and at low charge, so it is usually recommended to stay in the 80-20% range, only going to 100% shortly before a road trip.
A Slate with a 200 mile range operated 100-10% would give you 180 miles between charges. That would be the same range as a lithium nickel battery EV with a 300 mile range operated 80-20%.
I only have one car at a time (not married). I frequently visit family that lives about 80 miles away that live in a charger desert. I used to own a Chevy Bolt and it could get me to those family and back on one 100% charge with a little bit for grocery runs etc. while there. Even that I wish had like maybe another 20 miles of range lol.
What are your use cases that need more range than 200 miles? I used to drive a nissan leaf with 90mi range in southern california and only had to stop to charge outside the home a few times for days where I went between LA and Orange County. Otherwise I never really cut it close - and this was with the slowest wall outlet charging at home.
Personally I live in the Midwest. I make fairly frequent drives of around 200 miles to visit friends and family. I drive a pluggable hybrid. EV charging stations exist at both destinations, but are very spotty in between.
During the winter, range plummets. That 200 isn't getting me all the way from A to B. Having a hybrid fueling option is just much more practical for me.
I'm not saying I couldn't get it done, I could, but sitting for hours waiting for some slow-ass EV charging station in the middle of winter is not bullshit I'm signing up for.
Not that I am trying to argue with you, I'm not, but people have a "gas station mindset" about EVs and it leads to confusion, so let me spell out how this trip would look with a "charging station" mindset:
Leave home at 100%/200mi
Drive to destination (approx 3 hours) arrive with ~0%/0mi
Charge while at destination to 80%/160mi
Begin driving back home with a 20%/40mi deficit of range.
Stop anywhere/anytime after you get below 60%/120mi
Charge for 20%/40mi (~10 minutes)
Complete drive home and fully charge again.
Total extra time on 400 mile trip vs gas (assuming 300 mi tank range, so 1 fill-up): ~5 minutes (or 8 minutes if you stop for a quick charge on the way so you don't have to white knuckle down to 0%).
For cold driving in the winter, it would probably be closer to an extra 20 minutes.
I love my EV, but you're really not being at all realistic here. That's more of a perfect possible case scenario based on numbers from a website, not a real world scenario. I take a ~350 mile drive to Milwaukee in our 300 mile range car (2025 Ioniq 5) and we have to stop three times on the trip in each direction.
You're not actually going to get 200mi from 100% when you have 2 people and baggage loaded and traffic exists, and no one sane would be comfortable arriving with literally 0% battery. Charging stops take minimum 10 minutes just accounting for getting off & back on the freeway; usually more like 30-40 minutes because why would you not just charge back up to 80% since you're stopped anyway? Your destination hotel almost certainly does not have a charger, or if they do they charge an idle fee, so you can't just leave it overnight, so really that has to count as another charging stop.
For a 200mi each way trip, realistically you're talking probably two 30 minute charge stops in each direction. That's not completely unacceptable (eg just have some lunch at one of the stops) but your 5-8 minute quote is absolutely not realistic. A bump up to 300mi range would drop that down to one stop in each direction, which would be a real benefit.
Sorry to be blunt, but if you need to stop 3 times to charge to go 350 miles in an 300 mile range EV, you are doing something severely wrong or there is a problem with your car.
The only way I can make this happen in my head is the combination of driving in freezing temperatures, with the heat blasting the whole time, while doing ~80mph.
Mind you we do trips to Maine in the winter and only have seen ~20% range loss. Heated seats, cruise control at 65, heat on only as needed (about 5-10 minute an hour).
I occasionally drive 300 miles in an EV rated for ~319 miles, and I have to stop once in each direction, but I also have to charge at my destination. There's a Tesla station near there, and the rates are fantastic if you get there before 7 AM.
I keep it at 65 and let the heater do whatever it wants to do so that people are comfortable. Temperature, elevation differences, and wind definitely change things.
There's a section of the drive where I average something like 1.3 mi/kWh on the way up the mountain, but something like 6 mi/kWh on the way down. On the return trip, it's kind of fun to see the guess-o-meter show 110 miles remaining over the course of 25 miles, or have it actually increase.
I'm sure that gas vehicles follow a similar pattern, but I don't pay attention to usage like I do in an EV.
A drop from 80% to 20% in a 300mi car is 0.6 * 300 = 180 miles. It's a 350 mile trip. 350 / 180 = 2 80-to-20 discharges, and that's assuming no little detours for stopping at a cheese store or whatever. So we could do it in 2 stops if we were OK arriving with 20%, but we need some charge at the destination for getting around MKE, so it's three stops. And yeah, we drive 75 because that's the speed of traffic and the HVAC does whatever it does to make us comfortable.
There are 30-50 mile (>10%) stretches with no fast chargers in WI. I'm not going to risk being stranded if one is broken and I need to make it to the next one. I'm not really interested in nibbling around the edges & hypermiling to save one half-hour stop.
A few things -- I am not op, but I do drive an EV and sometimes drive it through some rural areas.
> Stop anywhere/anytime after you get below 60%/120mi
This is the aspect which isn't really possible in very rural areas. There is nowhere to stop at to charge, or the options are very limited. It's getting better, but it's the reason why people want more range.
Plus, in the midwest, the ranges tank in the dead of winter, due to sub-zero temperatures and headwinds.
If you can.
I have some family that doesn't have any power near where I park when I visit.
I'm also there for less than the _many, many_ hours it would take to get an EV from ~0 to ~80% on a standard 15A/120v outlet.
In one case, they have a pretty big tesla super-charger something like 40 miles from them so I can top all the way up just before I get there if I go slightly out of my way. In the US, we still have a long ways to go in the US before _high current_ charging options are as ubiquitous as gas.
Slow ass ev charging? My f150 charge from almost dead to almost full in 35-40 minutes and it has 300+ mile range and 135kWh battery. And its still a 400v architecture
> Slow ass ev charging? My f150 charge from almost dead to almost full in 35-40 minutes
Unfortunately a lot of people only really have a level1 class charger at home and that's a 10+ hour charge on a F150. Probably somewhere around 5-7 hours for a level 2 charger but that's only a "given" on new construction.
If you live close to a level3 charger than you can get topped up in under an hour but that also isn't as convenient as plugging in when you get home and forgetting about it since you have to drive to the charger.
It's pretty perfect as a 2nd family car (and I may buy it for exactly that if the production model reviews are good) but yeah, it's a tough sell for a primary car with that range. Assuming they manage to meet their sales targets and stay in business, I bet it'll improve rapidly over the next couple of model years.
Exactly. 200mi EPA is essentially 130-150 highway in winter, which is stopping for charging every 2hrs going 65 - not feasible for anyone living in the midwest.
most people don’t use the capacity of the pickup trucks on the road today. I’m not going to tell people what to drive, but I know personally a smaller pickup with occasional bed use and better efficiency and parking the rest of the time would be an easy sell.
Then you need to get our and do more real work of lots of different types. Exposed bed is often an advantage!
I have a welder, the safety instructions include "Never carry the gas tanks in an enclosed vehicle" -if there is a leak the gas tanks (nitrogen, argon, helium) can quickly displace the oxygen inside and I'll die before I know what happened.
Most things I carry don't need to be inside constantly. A little rain won't hurt anything, I wouldn't want to store anything outside but just a couple hours won't harm most things.
Also it is a lot easier to load things in a truck than a van. I can lift it over the sides (perhaps with a forklift). I can stand up in the back while arranging things - even when it is full I can stand upright.
I have used both trucks and vans to carry things over the years. Both are a compromise - and like all compromises there are negatives where something else would be better. Overall I fall on the truck is better side for what I do most often - but that is overall and I recognize there are good reasons some will choose something else.
> if there is a leak the gas tanks (nitrogen, argon, helium) can quickly displace the oxygen inside and I'll die before I know what happened.
This is something so many people don't realize.
When you hold your breath for too long, that feeling of suffocation isn't caused by a lack of oxygen, but the build-up of CO2.
If you replace the oxygen in a room with an odorless gas non-oxygen gas, your body doesn't tell you. You don't feel like you're suffocating. You just start suffering the effects of lack of oxygen. Dizziness, confusion, lightheadedness, but you likely won't realize anything is wrong. Your judgement and ability to react goes away and you lose consciousness without ever experiencing the desperate urge to breathe.
Another good example of this is when pilots fly too high without supplemental oxygen or adequate cabin pressurization and become hypoxic. They become confused and lose coordination while feeling perfectly fine. By the time they realize something is wrong, they may no longer be able to do anything about it.
Every Saturday I fill my truck bed with garbage cans and dump them at a transfer station across the highway from where I live. (We have no trash service in this rural area). I used to cram bags of trash into the back of my Honda CRV, which worked, but was often messy and stinky. You can hose out the back of a truck bed.
I used to think trucks were mostly useless, but have found that many people have weekly uses that make a lot of sense.
I do question the logic of lifting your truck so high you can't reach into the bed.
> Then you need to get our and do more real work of lots of different types.
I repair farm machinery, I design datacentre networks, and I design and build extremely complex electronic equipment. I'm good for the "real work of lots of different types".
I just don't see the point of a vehicle that gets my tools and equipment rained on.
I keep a minivan as a secondary vehicle / "work truck". It tows, I can fit 4x8 plywood or drywall sheets flat on the floor, and drive them around in the rain. Then put the seats back in and take 6 kids to a movie.
EV trucks sound good but you can't haul anything heavy or your range plumments. Unless the battery is huge but that is weight. A truck that can't haul is just for show.
Even gasoline trucks are stupid no low end torque, you need to rev it. I had a 6 cylinder Cummins diesel and at 500rpm idle on a hill it could move the 10,000 pound truck up the hill.
I feel like this is less true nowadays. Or at least, less of a concern.
I have a Rivian and my 400mi range gets cut significantly (down to 200 or 300, depending on the trip) when I have 7k lbs on the back, but never enough to stop me from towing. And with good charging in the area, it's a non issue. And waaaaayyyyy cheaper than diesel.
Maybe if I was towing daily, I'd feel different. Your mileage may vary. (Couldn't resist the closer!)
Edit: btw instant torque is a game changer. You can't beat an EV on that front
I used to think this way, but it turns out that EV trucks hold up on range better than one would expect thanks to regenerative breaking. The added weight of cargo requires more energy to get up to speed, but you get most of that back when breaking, so it's not lost energy. Meanwhile, a gas or diesel truck's range plummets when hauling since all the energy used to accelerate the load is lost in breaking. I'm not saying that EV hauling is perfect or a solved problem, but that the trades offs aren't as intuitive as they might seem.
I think regen braking only helps if the load is on the bed. If it's on a trailer, the trailer will have normal breaks and a lot is lost.
(Edit: spelling)
Trailers may not have regenerative braking today, but that's a chicken-and-egg problem; trailers already have wiring hookups, and once EVs become the default for personal vehicles, it's easy to imagine that regenerative braking will become standard.
+1 recommendation for this video. Also the owner of the channel participated in an EV cannonball run several times. I don't think they made it in one go, but still very cool how they had to plan for the trip and modify the vehicle.
I borrow my brother’s truck all the time to transport various DIY supplies. I could probably get a roof rack for my car for things like plywood and drywall, but borrowing the truck is easier.
I have an f150 lightning. Weight isn't a problem for range you barely notice it. Towing though matters mostly about the number of axels and aerodynamics. I have a small trailer I occasionally tow and it knocks the range to just under half which is... Not great but not terrible either. Running around town towing is fine, but if we were doing long distance (hundreds of miles) I'd probably rent a ice vehicle for it.
But I've done a 600 mile each way trip with the bed fully loaded and it's completely fine
I might be ignorant here as a german but how often are people towing something big 100 miles and more were they do not have time to just charge? I would have said 2-4 times a year (lakelife location far away twice a year?).
I mean for sure, if you are the person who constantly need this, EVs might need a little bit more advantages, but what does an avg F150 owner would tow 100mi every day / regularly?
I would put it like this: many many truck drivers in the US go years without towing a thing. Even work trucks (eg plumbers rarely need to tow anything). But, for the people that do tow, they tow a lot.
And the US is an incredibly large place. West of the Rockies it's essentially empty until you get to the coastal cities. So if you do anything agricultural, or your business is located in the rural places because of local resources (wood, minerals, whatever) you will be towing heavy things long distances.
Fun example of distance: last month I was in Tonopah, Nevada. My spouse wanted to try McDonald's. No problem, the sign on the billboard says there is one nearby (that exact word). It was in Hawthorne. 150km away. Americans, especially rural Americans in the Western states, have a different view of driving distance than Europeans. Bill Bryson was not really joking when he wrote that Americans will drive 60 miles for a taco.
For towing, 75% of truck owners claim to use this feature once a year or never.
More than 60% of truck owners use the bed to haul at least once per month; but it's difficult to determine the percentage who could have used a car instead. A small car can fit quite a few bags of soil in the trunk, for example.
I'm looking foward to the arrival later this month of my 280PS ""compact"" EV (Abarth 600E), which will be roughly as much power as every other car I've owned put together.
Some gas engines have low end torque, big block V8s and anything turbo. But yeah if hauling uphill is your thing diesel is a no brainer. It would be great if our half ton and midsize trucks had diesel options but as usual other countries have better options.
Personally I'm going hybrid truck next time. The advantages of electric (torque, 240V inverter) with the flexibility of gas. Payload is lower but I'm hoping they fix that by the time I need a new truck
I get so much joy from seeing these on the road. They are not to my taste, but it’s so nice to see something new on the road.
I still remember years ago seeing one in a grocery store parking lot, with a banana yellow wrap and the Zelda unlock sound as its lock chime. A brief moment of inconsequential joy.
Lastly, having the cyber truck drag race a Porsche 911, while towing a Porsche 911 (and win) has to be one of the best marketing stunts of all time.
A bad design that costs too much, the only people who bought these were ideologues committed to the vision of a man responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths, the gutting of the American state, and some of the most destructive politics of hate in living memory.
Some of us just got one because it’s a fantastic self driving electric family car. I have a family and live somewhere nice, life’s too short to get so wound up about politics. And you’ll still be seeing them on the roads for many years to come :)
I pity the family of someone who cannot get “wound up” about a man who gleefully dismantled USAID at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives,[^1] ploughed hundreds of millions of dollars into far right politics, and did a fucking nazi salute.
Outside of Mad Max it’s hard to conceive of a more dangerous car to be involved in a pedestrian collision. The cybertruck is a symbol of staggering ignorance and selfishness.
We’ll probably still see them on the roads for many years to come—and laugh at the lickspittle Elon toadies who gleefully bought them, knowing full well what they symbolize.
Hear, hear. As much as this man is a lightning rod for rage, it’s still only a tiny fraction of what he deserves for the atrocities he’s committed. I hope he rots in prison.
Yeah, why worry about the politics you’re supporting with your money? Presumably you believe you aren’t a likely target for the hate and violence Musk spends that money you gave him advocating for. Must be nice not to have to worry about your or your family’s personal safety or emotional well-being. Thanks for the advice about “getting wound up” over politics.
It's surprising how out of the loop people are if you don't think a new Tesla is a political signal. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt but there is a lot of doubt immediately if I see they have a cybertruck. And if you think that's the rough in the US I assure you in Europe they are likely to think even less of an owner.
Eh, if everything is a political signal then nothing really is. If anything, I find it more problematic that there are people who explicitly think that way. Frankly, that way madness lies. I don't even even drive a Tesla, but that is based purely on its anti-customer-features, reliability and so on.
As for Europe, it is possible. I have not visited in a while so I will take your word for it.
The scarlet letter didn't have "Good guys" and "Bad guys". That was sort of an important theme of the book since the priest himself was the baby daddy.
The main message of the book is "Wearing your choices on your sleeve can be painful in a judgmental world, but is ultimately healing; attempting instead to appear spotlessly moral will tear you apart from inside out"
Now apply to this thread.
I mostly agree it's not as simple as good guys and bad guys, but if anyone's a bad guy it's the most judgmental townspeople and the priest who lets Hester take the full brunt of judgment while he pretends he's squeaky clean.
That is literally what happened, even if you refuse to believe it. (Swap “millions” with “hundreds of thousands for now” if it makes you feel better.) Maybe spend some time off Twitter.
Do you boycott every company with a CEO that you don't agree with politically? Musk is much more open about it than others but you'll find that most of them are fine with screwing over everyone for their own (personal+company) benefit. For example, pretty much every major ICE automaker lobbies against EVs, including ones that sell EVs. Most people would be better off with an EV. They don't need to be expensive (see BYD) and the charging situation would improve with higher adoption rates.
Someone with a trillion dollars being an ideologue is different than a middle class person being one. Wealth is power and power brings with it ethical responsibilities. Always.
It's absolutely valid to expect more from politicians and people who hold power over our lives than we do from regular people.
I'm not an Elon fan in the least, but it does feel like most cars are designed by committee and converge on a few well-defined shapes and segments. And they sell a ton of them, so sure, of course.
But there's certainly some charm when you see a weirdmobile that doesn't conform and somehow got by the bean counters and into existence. The MINI Clubvan, for people who needed something compact and cargo-focused. The Cadillac CTS-V wagon, for people who wanted to haul ass ... and the family. The Toyota MR2, which felt like Toyota engineers decided "let's take these Corolla parts and build them in the shape of a Ferrari".
With the high costs of certifying a new car for sale it seems like we see fewer and fewer of these oddballs, and that feels like a shame.
So even though I'd never personally consider driving a poorly rendered dumpster from a 1980s video game, perhaps the world is a bit more interesting due to its existence.
I agree. I was personally getting really sad on how all design appeared to be converging on one 'allowed' shape without considering any other possible -- ah ha - angles. I posted on this before, but I will repeat it here, because it is relevant.
Those cars did have uses, but those uses revolved around drawing attention ( think advertising ). Whenever I saw one in my neck of the woods, they were selling something.
> Lastly, having the cyber truck drag race a Porsche 911, while towing a Porsche 911 (and win) has to be one of the best marketing stunts of all time.
I suppose, if you don't really like cars much, this was interesting. No one debates the ability for EVs to have absurd 0-60, 0-100 times, but there's almost no overlap between why you'd buy a Cybertruck versus a 911 besides status symbol, which gets back to... maybe it's neat, if you don't really care about cars much.
Agreed. Even if the design is polarizing, has quality issues, whatever about elon and politics, it is refreshing to see something different and distinctive on the road in a sea of blobby SUVs and extended cab trucks.
Kids really love these things and get very excited to see them on the road.
They are going to be very valued collectors items in 30 years once the kids of today have enough disposable income to buy whichever are left roadworthy by then.
Unless you’re Ferrari or Porsche, you don’t want to be in the situation where your vehicle has future collectors’ value. That usually just means it didn’t sell very well (rarity).
Let’s keep in mind that Tesla invested in this truck to be the next F-150, which is the best-selling vehicle in the USA for the past multiple decades.
You’re talking about different things. A failure from a manufacturer perspective can be a major success from a collector perspective (see also the DeLorean).
Even the hated Edsel is worth quite a bit today.
Of course it might be harder to keep a Cybertruck running for 50 years due to all the computerized components. Restorers will probably be relegated to rebuilding Cybertruck bodies with new components.
> Of course it might be harder to keep a Cybertruck running for 50 years due to all the computerized components. Restorers will probably be relegated to rebuilding Cybertruck bodies with new components.
Really no different than any classic car, really. GM isn't selling OEM parts for a '57 Chevy, for example. If you need replacement parts on those, nowadays, you're likely going to specialty manufacturers given there really aren't any "parts cars" around anymore.
For combustion engine parts all you need is metal work tools, not locked down proprietary software and electronics. My dad has a 1954 Citroen b11 that he’s kept alive and humming since he got it in the late 60s.
We'll have to wait and see. I honestly kind of doubt that will be true. There's all kinds of Tesla hacking that's been going on for years. It's possible to get a Tesla motor running without any external Tesla electronics through aftermarket solutions that carry support from the vendors.
I didn’t know that, that’s surprising, but I haven’t been following it that closely; I’ve just occasionally seen stories about Tesla shutting off service for DIYers. In that case maybe it won’t be so difficult.
And I’m talking about how their discussion of collectors is no consolation to the people at Tesla who were trying to make a mass-market profitable and successful vehicle.
I don’t have to talk about exactly what my comment parent is talking about in all facets. This isn’t a courtroom cross-examination.
If anything the original discussion of collectors was the non-sequitur. How this relates to the business of automobiles is far more relevant to the topic and article.
I guess I can’t really complain. They were making an interesting point about collectors that opened up a new line of discussion, in which I learned a couple of things. But that seemingly wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t responded to your comment, so somehow your non-sequitur response to his non-sequitur seems to have been necessary to generate that discussion. So thanks?
In its time, the Edsel was more meh than hated. Mainly people didn't buy them because they were essentially pricier Fords and it was a recession year, and Ford threw in the towel for Ford-internal political reasons. The looks were not as much of an issue as people think today. It certainly didn't have the same political associations.
Thanks for the clarification. My understanding was that the quality issues and exaggerated features drew a lot of mockery at the time. That’s not always enough to prevent something from succeeding (other polarizing vehicles like the Nissan Cube did OK) so the recession/internal politics angle makes sense.
Considering the recent headlines about the decompilation and reverse engineering scenes, I doubt it!
If anything, the centralized control units of modern cars may make this sort of thing easier. A 2000’s car has more distributed pieces of vehicle control units (more similar to microcontrollers) while a modern EV built in the style of a Tesla has fewer compute components.
So in 50 years you’ll have some kind of recompilation scene where those computers get replaced, almost like how people replace their router software with OpenWRT or the people at vintage computer festivals who stand up reverse engineered AOL Instant Messenger services.
Clearly this behavior is not original, but taught. Kids don't "boo" things out of nowhere. They are indifferent as hell to things on their own sure, but not a CB ...
Very clearly behavior introduced and encouraged by the parents, driven by politics, and not the merits of the object itself. Though it is an interesting commentary on the extreme, enforced conformity and politicization-of-everything we see in the world today.
What evidence do you see that "everything" is politicized? Elon was the largest single donor in the US midterm elections by far... Seems like he politicized things himself.
If the Nazi salute wasn't political enough. Children going through WWII in their history classes might dislike Cybertrucks independently of their parents.
It's always an excuse and everyone else's fault that things are politicized. The same people telling us to leave every social problem to the Invisible Hand get fussy when it actually manifests.
> The same people telling us to leave every social problem to the Invisible Hand get fussy when it actually manifests.
Yep. This is the world the Supreme Court handed us with Citizen's United. Now that money is speech, we all have to accept that when we buy things, our money can be used against us.
This is the world they wanted, and if you hate cancel culture, then you need to get on board with fixing the damage from Citizen's United... not raging against regular people who are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, and using their money as speech.
What you buy is your politics now. It fucking sucks, but look at it with clearer eyes.
Totally, what kid would boo something without being preconditioned to hate it? Humans can never separate concepts in there heads. Either you’re good or you’re evil. Have news for you all, we are all both. Not saying I support that guys behavior, but he’s done some impressive stuff to further mankind.
Quite something how many posts here seem to default to "Those children who do not share my opinion, they must have been brainwashed. It's the only explanation."
I mean, fair point. But it sure does smell like the original commenter's kids have been brainwashed. "Booing" a car or having a hateful attitude towards a car without any external influence? I actually don't think the Cybertruck looks good - at all. But all my kids are amazed by it. And we haven't spoken to them at all about Elon.
This is interesting to say given that by most objective measures of what constitutes a good truck, the cybertruck is a bad truck.
Edit: the stupid bed cover gets stuck when exposed to a not abnormal amount of dirt. In dry climates the thing shocks you every time you touch it. People regularly are slicing their hands open randomly on it. Body panels routinely fall off. Accelerator pedal getting stuck triggering recall. Shape of the bed making it impossible to actually carry anything normal and rectangular, 100 mile tow range when putting actual weight on it, bad visibility. I've seen some hilarious videos of them getting stuck in road conditions my Yaris could handle. I've even seen someone catastrophically damage the wheels by turning them left and right rapidly a few times.
A good truck can carry things in the bed and tow something a long way. It can drive on and off a dirty worksite without critical components failing or getting dug in or snapping an axle. Or ok fine, the Houston family truck special, it should at least be able to take the cooler and kids to the beach without getting stuck.
The cybertruck is not a good truck. It may be a good something else, status symbol or something, maybe it's comfortable to drive, I don't particularly care, it's simply not a good truck.
> objective measures of what constitutes a good truck
There is literally no such thing. But regardless, in this subthread, we are discussing the response of children to the pure aesthetics of the truck (or lack thereof) vs. the coached, politicized reaction to what it is claimed to represent.
There are plenty of objective measures of what makes a good truck. Payload capacity. Towing capacity. Towing range. Stopping distance when at GVWR. Stopping distance when towing at or Max Towing Capacity. Does standard lumber fit in the bed with or without the tailgate open. If it requires the tailgate to be open, does it provide factory installed tiedowns to be able to safely carry cargo with the tailgate open.
There are, of course, plenty of subjective measures such as NVH, amenability to modification through the aftermarket, total cost of ownership, offroad capabilities, etc.
From everything I've seen, some of which OP mentioned in an edit, points to the Cybertruck being a terrible truck seemingly designed by folks who have never owned/used a truck. And again, that is ignoring Elon's politics.
Mostly I've seen younger kids love it. I was at the park and a little girl saw a Cybertruck pull up -- "Look, Dad, it's from the future!"
I think Cybertruck is probably ultimately a failure, but the amount of hate it gets when they are at least trying to push things outside of the normal makes me sad. The amount of negativity towards anything new that's not perfect is insane.
Look, there is "trying to push things outside of the normal" and then there is "completely misunderstanding the purpose of a half-ton truck." I say this despite that fact that the Cybertruck, from a size perspective, it straddles the line between half-ton and 3/4-ton, and it is a complete utter non-starter as a 3/4 ton for several reasons.
If the CyberTruck were the size of a Honda Ridgeline or Ford Maverick, I think truck folks (who skew conservative) would look at it a lot less derisively. There are entire swathes of the half-ton truck market that the Cybertruck simply cannot compete in due to a seeming fundamental misunderstanding by the design team of what the vehicle needs to be capable of and amenable to. This is especially evident in the fleet/work truck market where the unibody design immediately shuts out folks who need to put an aftermarket bed replacement (think plumbers, welders, and other trades).
It straddles the 1/2 to 3/4 ton segment in terms of specs, but it is fundamentally impossible to tow a 5th wheel or gooseneck trailer with a Cybertruck.
Again, there is "think different" and there is "misunderstand the market."
> the amount of hate it gets when they are at least trying to push things outside of the normal makes me sad. The amount of negativity towards anything new that's not perfect is insane.
A significant portion of the hate they get is for what they represent and who they’re from, not because they’re “new” or “different” or “not perfect”.
I mean the things you acknowledge people hating him for probably overlap considerably with the things I'm thinking of when declaring him mediocre. To pick just one: Think of the boring CEOs who work hard to instill and drive an inclusive culture at their companies, and who make sure their people are treated as human beings. You haven't heard of any, because they're not out there trying to be an entertainment personality.
But anyway, I don't think it's fair to say he "hoarded" wealth. It's all from ownership in companies he led, or selling stock in said companies. It's not like, I don't know, post-soviet Russian oligarchs or Carlos Slim or something, who you could all reasonably say were hoarding wealth.
I’m an ultra lib, despise Elon, hope he faces a jury of peers to answer for all he has done, but this seems like learned behavior. My toddler son thinks they look really good (wife and I think they look atrocious and our anti-Elon bias doesn’t help).
>My kids, and any friends of theirs riding with us, will boo whenever they see them on the road
Because adults around them groomed them for those actions. Kids don't just start booing at objects out of the blue, they parrot the learned behavior of the adults around them.
My kids and their friends play a game where when you see certain cars, you do certain actions. Like "punch buggy" with VW bugs but with a bunch of different cars. Cybertruck is "cyberslap" and you get to slap someone when you see one.
I live in Dubai. There is no lack of super cars on the streets. The other day a cybertruck was parked outside my window and this group of teenagers spend a long time posing in front of it taking group pictures and individual pictures.
You don’t see that with a Ferrari or Rolls Royce.
It is definitely going to be a collectors items, if it isn’t already.
That’s not gonna pay the bills for Tesla, but I guess it’s something.
It’s certainly not exactly it because the Delorean has an indelible association with a classic film that’s beloved by many. It’s iconic without ever seeing one on the road (and most people have not)
And before that movie, the DeLorean actually had a very similar story - an expensive low-quality car that nobody wanted to buy, founder embroiled in controversy. The reason Doc Brown had the car in the movie was because it fit his image as an untrustworthy mad scientist.
It certainly could, but likely very Ship of Theseus'd. I feel like enough of the parts are DRM'd hard by Tesla you'd need to Frankenstein the thing to do it.
Definitely not, not only is the De Lorean a cooler car (by far) it wouldn't even be a collectors item if it wasn't in one of the most popular movies ever made. The cybertruck has the exact opposite associations, instead of being in a cool movie it's the pet project of one of the most hated humans alive.
I mean the 4680 cells are used in the model Y and the pack assembly isn't that complicated. I don't expect it to be financially ruinous to replace over time.
I think if you were to compare the cybertruck with other things kids like, you'd see that it looks like a hot pile of garbage. There's nothing about it that would attract a kid, it looks like a refrigerator.
I think there's a lot of kids (and parents) being influenced by politics more than pure ascetics.
The classroom of kids Ive seen (my kids attend 3 different schools), all of them are amazed by them - age ranges: 3, 7, 9 all their classrooms loved them. Same with some of the older kids I've been around. They're all boys, I do imagine it's a very boy-friendly car.
I personally don't have a cyber truck, not big on it personally, but never put my own opinions into my kids. The kids may not "like it", but they are amazed by it.
I'm in an area that doesn't really hate Musk, so I think that does have an impact.
I've never met or known a person IRL who cares about Tesla's ownership. I know people who hate Teslas cause they drive in the carpool lane or because they had bad experiences owning one, that's about it.
I have two girls; never mentioned Elon, Tesla, nor CT to them.
Both think it looks ugly.
No need to influence most people, IMO. Vehicles are shaped the way they are because the designs have broad appeal in general (familiarity? proportions? trends?). Most of us would find a normal, well-tailored black suit to be appealing and be baffled by avant garde, high fasion men's clothing.
Why should anyone be surprised that a completely novel design isn't appealing to most?
> Vehicles are shaped the way they are because the designs have broad appeal in general (familiarity? proportions? trends?).
Isn’t it mostly fuel efficiency standards and manufacturability? You’ve got a chassis that’s used for like five different models for five years between refreshes, not a lot of room to innovate without driving up all the costs so only the luxury cars can afford to look different.
Most cars are and have been roughly the same shape for decades now. Rare innovations here and there, but largely still hold the same basic shapes across manufacturers and markets.
But that's part of it. Cars look the way they do because that is an efficient shape for something doing the job of "Car"
People who want cars to look different for it's own sake are saying they want worse cars.
Why? Why do those people need their cars to be shittier cars just to look different? What are they after? I bought a car as a toy, but it's average looking and not really special, and that doesn't have to actually impact how much I enjoy it. My previous shitty car was also very much enjoyed.
I don't understand the insistence that it looks "different" as if there is any virtue to a car design that was randomly generated to look different.
Do you think so? I'm not arguing here, I genuinely don't know.
My kids are too young for this, but surely there's a tradeoff here. Should you override some of your child's natural wonder because of adult aesthetics (or worse political concerns)? Yes. But how often? I'm not sure the line should be drawn at a truck design. (Although, maybe you're teaching your kid taste, again I'm not sure.)
I was admittedly being a little facetious. It's not surprising to me that kids, especially kids who are at that age where monster trucks, construction equipment, the Batmobile etc. are the coolest things in the world would be drawn to the Cybertruck because it certainly does stand out and look larger than life in a way, like it was ripped from the pages of a comic book. I don't think there's any real harm in that, setting my own feelings about Elon and what he has come to represent aside for a moment. Let them enjoy the weird shiny thing while they're still too young to understand why it sucks. ;)
I wouldn't use disliking Cybertrucks as a proxy for good parenting. You can hate everything a symbol represents and still find the symbol cool, like I think motorcycle clubs are awesome but despise the toxic masculinity stereotype many reproduce.
I suspect you're right. :) I think it's ghastly and poorly engineered/ designed.
14yo probably influenced -me- more than the other direction, though. That one has strong opinions.
This is the same 14yo who when she was younger would delightedly point out every Tesla (then, mostly model S's) she saw on the road. Probably still responding to both aesthetics and politics but it was interesting to see the shift.
This theory backs up my opinion that every rich person who drives an exotic car is just an eight year old who had a Lamborghini poster on their wall growing up
I own a exotic car for the same reason I own mechanical watches. I love the engineering and craftsmanship. (But yes, I had several Lamborghini posters growing up) ;-)
I suspect we’re going to discover a depressing future for today’s era of cars. 40 years from now will the Cybertruck software even let you turn it on? When will the last update have been? What servers does it communicate with that’ll end up long since decommissioned?
(FWIW my kids giggle at the Cybertruck and say it looks silly. In a sense they do love them but I’m not convinced they’ll long for one in years to come)
> Kids really love these things and get very excited to see them on the road.
Do you have anything empirical to back this up? This feels like someone kind of hoping something is true. It's like the Harley rider sure that everyone thinks they're super cool with their super loud bike.
Little kids think crotch rockets are cool. Only the children of Harley owners think Harleys are cool. I mean, you understand there is a whole meme about this right?
In the same way that I'm entirely certain kids don't look at a monstrous mobile trash bin and say "wow, cool!". But the owners of those ugly abominations sure think they look cool.
This is all so sad to me. I was one of the people who jumped at the chance to preorder when it was first announced. People loved to hate on the design, but I feel like a lot of that was just them projecting their hatred of Musk over to the car. I loved the aesthetic and in a lot of ways, it seemed like a dream car for me.
By the time it came out though, Musk started supporting fascism, the price doubled, and the production quality issues took away all the appeal.
I'm not fond of Musk, but I can separate that from judging the aesthetics of a vehicle. The CT looks okayish from the front, but from the back it's an ugly bloated mess. Also it's just way too big of a vehicle for my taste. Like Hummers, I just have no desire to drive a vehicle that large.
It's smaller than an F150 Lightning. Sure, it's not for everyone, but if you want a truck that can haul large items or plywood sheets, it's reasonable.
politics aside, Cybertuck is/was an engineering breakthrough.
48 volts, steering wheel, no paint ( better durability), trunk, wipers etc.
the car pushed the boundaries. If you compare level of creative thinking of cybertruck vs lets say electric ford, it's not even comparable. I respect that despite one person behind it. I don't care how it looks. It's polarizing. oh well.
My 11 y.o. relative from abroad asked me to take rl pictures of the truck, after he heard my neighbor bought it.
I think Tesla did some cool things with it, but I think it's a little too early to label it as an engineering breakthrough. I'm not convinced some of the things they did and decisions they made (one large wiper, the stainless steel is susceptible to surface corrosion, various pinch points, weak control arms) will hold up over time
It's a hulking pile of shit built to be hostile to the people and things it shares an environment with. The middle fingers and thumbs downs people aim at them are fully deserved by the buyer and driver. They don't fit in parking spaces and are driven by people who think they're the main character of earth. I look forward to the day when the last one melts from a faulty battery fire.
They show as much kindness to the cybertruck owners as the cybertruck shows to pedestrians. That car is built to hurt people around it, even if is by accident
And yet there were still durability issues with the truck? My understanding is that there were many manufacturing issues, and it also experienced several recalls.
Maybe through a very specific engineering perspective it was interesting. From a broader engineering perspective it was embarrassing. It is called a truck, very much not a truck. Nearly no actual utility. No hauling capability. No durability. Falls apart because it is glued together. Shows every place where someone brushed up against it. Poor fit to the operating environment.
I'll give you that it was a unique design. But if we're talking about engineering... it could not have promised more or delivered less.
Its made from hard steel, which is much harder to scratch and damage than ordinary car paint (or indeed ordinary car bodies, which are made of softer steel).
They demonstrate what's possible when we throw all engineering principles out the window and let a child's sketch turn into a product. Truly revolutionary.
I think the main breakthrough was cost-engineering: glued on panels, cast-aluminum frame, "metal" accelerator pedal glued onto a plastic component. Which is ironic considering how expensive the thing was.
I blame Tesla and their "giant iPad" interiors for many of the cost-cutting trends we see in cars today.
I’ve been seeing complaints on the internet about how all cars look the same nowadays. I think the cybertruck proves why. A lot of design has coalesced around the same thing, not just for cars but for websites and apps, logos, furniture, etc. because people like that stuff.
Something new and fresh can be accepted and loved, but it still needs to be familiar and somewhat iterative. A radical change like the cybertruck is hated for that reason. (People also hate it because of Elon, but they don’t hate the other Teslas nearly as much as they hate the cybertruck)
When the Cybertruck was first announced, Musk was still the darling of the left and progressive wealthy. It was daring and different and cool, and it was explicitly meant to be an experiment in making cars differently.
By the time of its delayed release, Musk had become deeply unpopular with many of that original coalition of fans and buyers, the truck was more expensive than originally promised, his new ‘base’ probably couldn’t afford to buy many of them, and it was structurally a fairly normal car underneath the steel panels. It also suffered plenty of embarrassing issues, which people were of course gleeful to publicise.
It could have been a cool funky status symbol, but Musk screwed it all up.
> When the Cybertruck was first announced, Musk was still the darling of the left and progressive wealthy. It was daring and different and cool, and it was explicitly meant to be an experiment in making cars differently.
People still hated it when it was announced, the online discourse was largely negative surrounding it. I remember being in my tech office at the time and we were all talking about how bad it looked.
Not universally. Your tech office and online spaces may have disliked it, but I also saw a lot of excitement and positivity about it, both online and IRL.
From my memory, a lot of the excitement was directed at what the design was trying to achieve: a structural body made from easy to make pressed steel panels. This was meant to enable a much cheaper car while also removing the bottlenecks plagueing Tesla's production lines at the time
None of this materialized. The truck that ended up in production was a traditional body construction, but with unpainted steel panels so it looks like the truck Musk presented. It ended up with all the drawbacks of a steel body, while still being expensive and hard to manufacture
I agree that this was part of it - I referred to this twice in my original post.
Once the structural body concept failed (has it ever been adequately explained why they failed?) it would have made sense to either drop the Cybertruck altogether, or pivot to a more traditional design. But ego prevailed, sadly.
IMO the big missed opportunity was to follow the model 3 with a 'model 2' - a smaller, cheaper car - probably in the VW Golf / BMW 1-series class.
The Cybertruck announcement was a couple years after the Thai Rescue Divers "pedo" incident, which was the tipping point for many people (including on the left) to realize he wasn't actually the Tony Stark character he pretended to be and actually a pretty shitty person.
This was well into the Tesla flamethrower/short shorts/funding secured/etc period of $TSLA meme stockification. Also pushing Dogecoin/crypto.
He certainly wasn't the "darling of the left" by then. But you are correct that his image was significantly less tarnished by political meddling and later obsession with woke/trans/culture war of the day stuff.
He was the darling of the emerging meme stock day trader/gambler/WSB crowd which in broad strokes tends to anti-correlate with the "left".
Agreed. When it was first announced, I was kind of interested. I laughed at imagining it as a screenshot from an N64 game.
But it didn't live up to the selling points, it is very expensive, has design issues that weren't necessary for the aesthetic, and the company's owner turned out to be a really horrible person contributing meaningfully to changes in my country that are dangerous.
This is rewriting of history. It was ridiculed even by the reddit shitlibs that hung on to Papa Elon's every word. Breaking the glass twice was a meme.
One thing I think gets overlooked in cybertruck discourse that I didn’t appreciate until I saw one in person is that it’s really big. It FEELS really big. With all those hard edges, it also seems more imposing and aggressive.
It doesn’t give me the impression of “radical change.” It felt familiar and iterative of the modern, oversized F250-style pickup truck in all of the worst ways.
Cars look the same because they're trying to his specific mileage and safety standards. There are a few common shapes that can do that, and every angle you flatten into a curve gets you a couple more MPG.
Trucks don't look quite the same because they have different standards to adhere to.
Or maybe "I am not like other girls" is not a good personality to hang on. An exceptional athlete stands out. But so does the village drunk. Just being different is not enough.
The product failed because it was a shit product. In the grand scheme of unreliable American built cars, it was just another one. It was certainly not as bad as a Jeep. But it was ugly, and did not do what it was supposed to do; be a truck.
This is every top comment ITT, and I am checking user's post histories to confirm they are real. I understand I might be in the minority, but this belief that just being different is a merit unto itself is ridiculous.
There’s a school of thought that anything is better than blandly conformative design. In that school, the Cybertruck counts as progress.
To me, it’s more like answering a complaint about the blandness of pop music with electric bagpipes and nails on chalkboard: if you can’t be different and good, maybe don’t try so hard to be different.
I think a lot of the reason most cars look the same is they all have to pass similar pedestrian crash standards. Once you account for all of that, the basic shape of the vehicle is set and there is only so much unique styling you can attach.
People don't just hate it because it looks different. They hate it because it's ugly, unreliable, and a symbol of the modern idolatry of the billionaire class.
It's a massive, gaudy symbol of unfathomable decadence, and every purchase was made to visibly support the passion project of the world's most influential white supremacist.
It's one thing for a vehicle to be "ugly," but this one stands for so much more.
I really thought it would have had a lot of potential for cheaper manufacturing. No paint process is huge. And originally they were talking about basically building it like origami from a sheet of steel.
The steel exoskeleton idea didn't survive to production. The production truck has a mix of aluminum castings and welded steel unibody, with the stainless panels just acting as the skin. Maybe they bring some structural rigidity, but not like the origami plan that was originally discussed.
The end result is a vehicle with all of the costs of a normal unibody design plus the costs of dealing with cutting, folding, and attaching thick sheets of stainless steel.
It never delivered the promised $40k starting price or the promised 500 mile top spec range either.
It’s staggering how much money they wasted because Musk didn’t want to listen to real experts. It was years late because stainless steel is so much harder to work with, especially when it has so many complicated geometries, and every one of those delays was a chance for him to say “maybe the people I hired for their expertise know something I don’t” rather than “I’m the boss, make it work”.
They could’ve done something like the Slate truck a decade earlier.
Part of the delay was also the 48V architecture. So in addition to the obvious new things like stainless steel panels they also had to redesign mundane parts like window motors and interior lighting. The Cybercab is also using a 48V architecture so even though they've never talked about it being an R&D platform maybe they'll retcon it that way.
That forces a redesign of all the car electronics. While it might well be a good idea anyway from an R&D point of view it's undeniably expensive.
(I have a very slight visibility on 48V car audio R&D, for example. Most digital electronics could be adapted with a different DC-DC converter but the audio power amp stage takes direct supply voltage)
A real expert told Elon that self landing rockets were possible over chutes. The retconning to build the myth of Elon is ridiculous.
Lars Blackmore was doing self-landing rocket research before he went to spacex. Musk's reusable rockets (who doesn't want that, this is why the shuttle exists) wanted to use parachutes.
No, no rocketry expert ever said that reusable rockets were impossible. They would have told you that the cost to develop them would not recoup itself based on the then-existing demand for orbital payloads, and that banking on such demand materializing would be a massive gamble (which is why Starlink exists).
"What I’m discovering in the market is that SpaceX primarily seems to be selling a dream, which is good. We should all dream. I think a $5 million launch or a $15 million launch is a bit of a dream. I think reusability is a dream. How am I going to respond to a dream? First of all, you don't wake people up. They have to wake up on their own."
Falcon 9 is partial reusable, took a lot of money to do so and yeah its a good product. Not sure how expensive it was for US americans to gift it to Spacex but sure.
The highest number though is like 30 uses and Starship still hasn't profen itself.
Also the boring company, Doge, Solar City, the cybertruck etc.
So what do we get out of this? Musk is for sure not just an idiot, he for sure sees sometimes good opportunities, but also he had the money to invest in these and he got lucky a few times too.
> Falcon 9 is partial reusable, took a lot of money to do so and yeah its a good product. Not sure how expensive it was for US americans to gift it to Spacex but sure.
How much money have Americans gifted NASA to pay Russia for launching payloads ton Soyuz rockets?
And you could just as easily frame it as Musk "gifting" something to the US government by offering cheaper launches than Roscosmos and Boeing/ULA, and developing new capabilities cheaper than Boeing
> They could’ve done something like the Slate truck a decade earlier.
They could have Roadstered it.
Buy Ford Transit 350 "gliders", work out how to make them FWD, RWD, or AWD using your own transaxles and batteries. Pickup, van, or just a bare chassis-cab to go to a coachbuilder, it doesn't matter.
The Transit has been around for 61 years. Sticking electric motors in it that you already have is a no-brainer.
"real experts" are not always correct. A bet a lot of people told him that the original Teslas were a bad idea or SpaceX would never...wait for it...take off.
But sometimes people win when they push the boundary of what might work, push the problems to the surface and then solve them.
I don't like the guy but you can't really deny his ethusiasm and single-mindedness.
An engineers isn’t going to say “EVs will never work” or “reusable rockets are impossible”. They’d say things like “we’re really going to need to minimize weight and try to build better batteries to hit that range goal” or “it’s going to require a lot of money to do the R&D for reusable boosters, you need to land a NASA contract so we can afford dozens of tests”. Engineers express tradeoffs far more than absolutes.
Musk has enthusiasm, yes, but he’s let his luck at PayPal and successfully buying Tesla from the original founders go to his head. Nobody is right all of the time, and no serious project goes perfectly according to the original vision without adjustments. There’s nothing wrong with the idea of an electric truck — companies with better engineering culture are making great ones — but the Cybertruck failed exactly the way everyone who isn’t a superfan expected: it’s designed in a way which guarantees high costs and it just doesn’t deliver corresponding benefits for most people. Diving into the culture wars against a large chunk of potential Tesla buyers was a bad idea but even if he hadn’t, there just aren’t that many people who have that kind of money to spend and the ones who do usually won’t accept so many limitations and flaws.
That’s a little bit revisionist. I don’t like Musk much either but to be fair:
- no one in the established “expert” car companies thought that mainstream EVs were feasible. Sure, there may have been individuals, but it didn’t make it into corporate strategy or product delivery. The Model S plus the Supercharger network changed the face of the car industry.
- none of the clever brains spending billions in NASA, ULA, ArianeSpace, et al made a reusable commercial rocket a reality. They had an infinite head start vs. SpaceX and failed to innovate. Even now, having their lunch money regularly stolen by SpaceX, where is the reusable competition?
> no one in the established “expert” car companies thought that mainstream EVs were feasible
No executive in the established "expert" car companies had any reason to rock the boat. Establishing EVs as a credible alternative to ICEs required a build-out of charging infrastructure that none of them were willing to commit to. But non-established companies had no such risk, and the emerging companies in China would have developed no less quickly even if Tesla never existed.
> none of the clever brains spending billions in NASA, ULA, ArianeSpace, et al made a reusable commercial rocket a reality
All of them would have told you that there's nothing impossible about a reusable rocket, only that their customers were happily served by their current offerings. Without Starlink, there would be no commercial demand that would make up for the cost of R&D.
> Tesla existed before Musk, who merely invested in the company and then rewrote the history to make him a “founder”.
The world is scattered with the skeletons of failed car startups. Outside of China, there hadn’t been one to succeed at a meaningful level for a long time, and no one gave any new entrant much hope of survival, much less one that was also trying to create a whole new sector and the infrastructure to support it.
Like it or not, Tesla’s survival let alone its level of success has been extraordinary.
It’s impossible to know whether it would have succeeded without Musk’s involvement; but… the probabilities suggest perhaps not.
> Fast forward 20 years, and now we have musk shills calling people “revisionists” when they just state facts.
I assume this barb is aimed at me.
I’m far from a Musk “shill”. I strongly dislike the person he’s become, the way he behaves, and the huge opportunities he’s squandered as a result and along the way. I refuse to buy his products.
However, I’m just not emotionally involved in either direction and try to be factual and neutral. He’s a horrible person who has led companies that have achieved extraordinary things.
Ironically, people who can’t see past their emotions and spend time on the internet throwing insults around in discussions exist on both sides, whether they’re a “shill” or an anti-shill, or hater, or whatever terms fits (you) best.
Yes. Musk and his colleagues revolutionised two technical and entrenched industries. You make it sound like this wasn't a difficult proposition.
> Without Starlink, there would be no commercial demand that would make up for the cost of R&D.
Not sure about this analysis.
a) SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 relatively cheaply - ~$300m to it simply being a viable launch platform (i.e. without reuse, Dragon, etc.)
b) NASA contributed to some of the costs.
c) SpaceX was already offering launch services cheaper than their competition before perfecting reuse or conceiving of Starlink.
Therefore it's likely that they'd have had a positive (albeit lower) business case and made back R%D costs over time, simply by offering launch services and capturing a majority of the market thanks to their lower prices. Reusability lowered their launch costs, when it came. Starlink was an answer to the question of how to capitalise on all of the cheap surplus launch capacity they'd made available.
It's not just high costs, its high costs that are only there to appease one man. The stainless steel sheets don't provide features that the average consumer even considers and has more than a few drawbacks
I can deny that his enthusiasm and single-mindedness are the reasons for his success.
His initial success, PayPal, was just a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Online payments are an obvious thing and a natural monopoly. He guessed right that PayPal would be the one that succeeded.
That gave him the opportunity to place more big bets that paid off. Neither electric cars nor reusable spacecraft were obvious wins the way online payments were, but it's also no sign of genius to have happened to place bets on companies that succeeded.
The evidence for that is that his luck ran out. He keeps backing audacious projects, and they keep failing. Anybody else would have been bankrupted a dozen times over. He keeps going because he got lucky the first time, with so much money that it's almost impossible for him to lose it all.
That is to say, I think it's more survivorship bias than the merits of his "enthusiasm and single-mindedness". A decade ago he had such a string of successes that I would consider the case that he was actually smarter than average, but he's had such a string of conspicuous and obvious catastrophes that the net result simply seems average at best.
I can deny it because he overpromises on everything just like Elizabeth Holmes. Only difference in space isn’t something new the us government did it in 1960’s and didn’t destroy nearly as many rockets. Elon isn’t smart enough to try an interfere with production rockets. His distance from decision making is what made it a success.
You invented a fictional group of people, got mad at them, then declared what you imagined they did was wrong.
I want you to know that.
Musk came into Tesla as funding. People were trying to make the cars.
With regards to SpaceX, he was looking for people to build rockets to go to Mars. But no one wanted to sell to him. So he hired rocket scientists to build the rockets.
And yes, while there will always be some asshole who says "That won't work", there were plenty of ""real experts"" who were working at those companies.
And the "real experts" left us dependent on Russia for launching a couple capsules a year to the space station.
They could have done what Musk did with Falcon 9 in the 90's. Instead they chose to mess around more with solid fueled heavy lift vehicles, all the while proclaiming that they were the experts/science.
(I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there's a difference between thinking outside the box and trying new ideas, and literally ignoring factual reality and repeated clear feedback from people who actually know what they're talking about.)
I mean once you buy the tooling, it’s still probably cheaper to produce stainless steel trucks than paint normal steel. I agree on everything else though
If that’s true it would only be the case if you could amortize that tooling across enough vehicles. Selling 10k-20k per year from a production line planned with a capacity of 125k per year won’t get you there.
Not really. Stainless is expensive and brittle. It's a lot more work to form complex panels out of stainless, and then they're essentially scrap if there's even a tiny amount of damage. A small dent will start a crack.
Painted piece of plastic gonna be cheaper than sheet of stainless steel. Stainless is significantly more expensive than typical materials used on car, which would be normal steel or plastic depending on panel.
Also painting IN THE FACTORY isn't expensive. Re-painting the part on repair is because of all of the prep work required (take apart, clean, color match etc).
Might be break-even, but I doubt it would be cheaper
"It will be cheaper" is a perspective of ignorant "smart guy" that thinks because he got successful in one thing that they can weight in on industry processes they have no idea about
They developed, at great cost, the process used for the cars with the giga press and the plastic. It would've been a fine process for an inexpensive truck.
Speaking out of my ass here, but I would not be surprised if it's much cheaper to paint cheap stamped steel, compared to using more expensive stainless steel that's treated to remove all surface marring/scarring from the stamping process. Those panels don't come out all brushed from the metal presses...
What happens if you scrape your fridge getting it into the kitchen?
You go to the DIY shop and buy a tin of white spray paint.
What happens if you scrape your brushed stainless fridge getting it into the kitchen?
Well, now you get to either live with it, or come up with some really clever ideas on polishing out the scratch and then sanding it back to disguise it with the rest of the surface which will never really look right.
The original design is what gave them millions of pre-orders, it was the reduction in range and increase in cost that made most people cancel those pre-orders.
$100 is a fair chunk of money for the average person. I agree some preorders were probably half hearted, but the $100 commitment definitely weeded out some the jokers for sure.
$100 is a fair chunk of money for anyone who would have never been a buyer anyway.
$100 is also a trivial amount of money for a larper with half the budget required to complete the purchase. Or someone with plenty of money who just put in a reservation "just in case" they wanted one.
Thats not really fair, the $40k promised price is not that much higher than your average middle class car purchase. I think anyone willing to go to the site, sign up, and hand over $100 would be willing to to take on a payment plan for a $40k car.
The average buyer in the US can't afford a new car of any kind. The average car sale is a used car. Used cars outsell new cars 3 to 1. And the average used car sells for $27k.
Entertaining the idea of a new car purchase is an upper-middle class thing, and a fully-refundable $100 is impulse buy territory for most of them. Yes, many of them would have been capable of taking on a $40K purchase, but $100 is not a serious indicator that they were serious about doing it. People who have this money are doing relatively well and blow $100 on much more inane things that aren't refundable.
A traditional dealer would ask someone with much less money looking at a used Nissan Sentra to put down $500 to hold a car.
You are fully entitled to your opinion but the data shows very little overlap between the groups of people who buy new cars and the groups of people for which $100 is a significant amount of money.
If you want to hold reserve a damn Toyota the dealer is going to ask you to show up in person, put down $500-1000 and fill out a credit app.
Tesla knew the $100 reservation was too low to show serious commitment, and this was intentional for two reasons:
I wonder how many people liked the design vs tolerated it? If Ford offered a cybertruck trim on the F-150 without changing the price would people buy it?
No doubt there is some demand for an "out there" design, but I'd have to guess that the projected $40K price was itself a large part of the attraction.
Possibly, but as it cost $100 to put down a deposit I would be surprised if that many people were willing to actually pay for something they only tolerated.
It was a refundable deposit (and small), so I wonder how many people were even that serious - no real commitment.
2019 USA annual car/pickup sales were ~17M. I find it very hard to believe that 10% (2M cybertruck pre-orders) of those purchasers were seriously interested in a cybertruck - it really is not a design made for mainstream tastes.
If you owned a company and announced a product that 2 million people went and paid you $100 each for to preorder it, Im pretty sure you would think differently.
Not sure what you mean by that - I'm sure Tesla was happy to have the reservations (great publicity - maybe that was the point), but there is no indication they took the numbers seriously.
The design looks much better rendered on screen than in real life.
I thought the early images looked amazing but I see them all the time in real life (a few people in my neighborhood own them) and they just look so stupid on the road.
Agreed, but this thread is duscussing the original popularity and whether Elon was wrong to believe it or not.
With false but great looking renders and false but great sounding promises, the hype and interest was real. It was only when the real product became apparent that it became a joke and interest was lost.
You would think maybe Musk would learn something about overpromising from this fiasco, but judging by things like DOGE I guess not!
>You would think maybe Musk would learn something about overpromising from this fiasco, but judging by things like DOGE I guess not!
You're talking about the guy who has a fake twitter account tweet at him things like "you're such a good father, Elon, your kids are lucky to have you".
He's absolutely desperate for attention and approval, because not being perceived as cool is crippling to his sense of self-worth.
Of course he won't learn from overpromising! He inhabits a different reality, surrounded by sycophants and yes-men.
A folded stainless exoskeleton without paint has the potential to make low volume car manufacturing much cheaper.
A press brake is generic and cheap. Molds for presses are cheap if the cost can be spread over many vehicles, but are expensive for low volume manufacturing.
Paint shops are similar. They're not expensive if you're running a lot of cars in the same color through it, but at low volumes with custom colors they are fabulously expensive.
Of course the final production Cybertruck didn't use the exoskeleton design so it was the worst of both worlds, but it does feel like the original design wasn't expected to sell well and was designed for low volume manufacturing.
Same. Initially I was optimistic about the Cybertruck because I though “flat metal panels and no paint is going to make both manufacturing and repairs so much easier and cheaper”.
Paint has been well studied. We know how to do it really cheap and automated these days. Cheap is relative. I'm sure that we're talking tens of millions of dollars to get all the equipment needed. But on a scale of factory and for how long it will last, that's cheap.
Flat metal is more expensive than curved metal. Curved metal, you design the curves to help support the stress points: you can get by with thinner sheets. Flat metal requires thicker heavier more expensive sheets of sheet metal in order to be strong enough.
Curved metal also lets you design the whole thing to be more aerodynamic. which is an important consideration even with something as un-aerodynamic as a truck.
> I'm sure that we're talking tens of millions of dollars to get all the equipment needed.
Painting cars really is a hugely optimised process that materially affects performance characteristics such as weight.
Its very difficult to appreciate just how many cars are made worldwide wide, but just think if a completely optimised fully robot optimised line cost a billion dollars, in only needs to process a few million cars to fully pay itself off. Just look at how much a “paint option” costs. Enough people paying for a premium colour would completely pay for the entire production painting line.
Painting cars is also a process that scales. If you want to do a great job on one car everything you need can be had for less than $3000 (inflatable spray booth, large air compressor, a paint gun, and lots of sand paper). A good job can be done for less (a cheap air compressor and paint outside can still get good results), and most people who want to paint a car already have most of the tools so the cost goes down. The above setup will also handle a small auto body shop that is painting a couple cars per month, and you can upgrade equipment as needed (I'd start with a spray building instead of an inflatable booth).
At the scale of Tesla the millions of dollars on a fully automated setup is cheap because amortize the cost of so many cars
Painting actually introduces some scaling issues in manufacturing. Any painting step prevents you from haphazardly mixing all the parts produced on a line. Most vehicles will have multiple lines that eventually converge across multiple suppliers. Painting forces you to either coordinate the production of each individual component so that they're all painted the correct color during final assembly (which becomes difficult if any parts fail QA), or buffer painted parts in a giant warehouse. There's other advantages to the warehouse, but I wouldn't call it cheap.
Very common to use a mix of both strategies in practice.
They built that truck backwards and upside down. The single-piece forged aluminum frame was basically impossible to repair and brittle. Typical truck frames flex, they're part of the suspension. For small accidents, the frame can be bent back. The CT would just crack, requiring extensive aluminum welding to fix which is waay harder than welding a steel frame.
Either you have a modern expensive car and insurance which knows how to handle it properly, or it doesn't matter anymore and you got to a cheap car doctor.
There were no flat panels. That was a sales pitch. In reality, a slight curve to a panel adds so much strength that it can be made considerably lighter/cheaper than a flat panel of sufficient strength. Flat panels also tend to dent inwards very easily, which is not a good look for a car. Then there is the issue of thermal expansion. A pre-bent bit of metal will expand in a predictable way. A dead-flat panel could buckle in multiple unexpected ways.
I had a jeep wrangler once. The window was "flat" but not if you looked at its reflection. There was an almost imperceptible but complex curve, no doubt for strength.
how you repair steel panel and also make it look nice ?
...you don't. You replace it in whole. You can't use filler to mask small dents and paint over it, if you want it to look as before, you have to pretty much replace it.
That original process was what should have led to lower prices. Instead, they couldn't do it and had to resort to gluing steel panels onto a body-on-frame design which is much more expensive. They still managed to keep it just as hideous, so kudos there I guess.
I doubt that replacing painted regular steel with fancy stainless steel is going to be cheap. Paint is expensive, but so is stainless steel. I also can't imagine the "origami" technique to be cheaper than stamping, the reason they suggested that is because their fancy stainless steel can't be stamped. And in the end, Tesla couldn't even do it, so they glued the parts on...
I don't know any item where the unpainted stainless steel version is cheaper than the painted steel version, thinking about kitchen appliances for instance. For cars, the most famous car with a stainless steel body is the DeLorean DMC-12, which was notoriously expensive, even without the time circuits.
Two-person taxi is actually reasonable for the modal journey, but absolutely doesn't cover all use cases or accessibility.
The cybertruck was an early example of what someone on bsky called the "everyone is twelve now" theory: it looks like it was drawn by a small boy's idea of "cool", with zero further thought.
There's a comparison that's been making the rounds on social media for a while.
In once panel, there's the Cybertruck whose owner bragged about it carrying a large round hay bale (weighs around 1,500lbs) with the suspension looking like it was about to die. Next to it is a shot of a circa-1980 Ford F250 carrying three of the same bales and sitting perfectly level. TBF, the F250 probably had air bags in the rear suspension, but still...
That thing is only a "truck" because they decided to call it that.
Even modern trucks have turned into giant "luxury" vehicles that can't haul much more than the smaller trucks of 30 years ago. For most trucks bought by families, the heaviest thing they lug around is cat litter.
Somehow everything turns into a misdirection with Elon, where failing to innovate yields ridiculous distractions. When the Cyberjunk was clearly a poor product, they pivoting to "doubling as a boat" and being bullet "proof". And also you can play shitty ports of video games, awkwardly, on your in-car screen.
At some point this gimmick misdirection nonsense has to stop working.
Oh look, if you have a transport-truck sized massive compressor in your garage and use 100kWh to spend a day filling a tank, your ComingSoonNow(TM wink) Roadster can do some silly stuff if you dedicate much of the interior to a giant explosion hazard.
Another prediction from the Simpsons comes true. The 1991 episode "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" where Homer designs a car with zero input from anybody besides himself. The result is an overpriced behemoth with random features nobody needs and nothing customers want (fuel efficiency, affordablility).
There's a pattern here: when an Elon Project is successful, he jumps in with Elon innovations, like cyber truck. The next example that will follow this pattern is building a rocket that's too big for orbital payloads, but takes 22 refueling flights to get beyond orbit.
What do you mean too big for orbital payloads? Mass to low earth orbit is what matters, which starship is well optimized for. You could always put a tiny third stage on there to go places, but that is back to the apollo style yeeting a tiny amount of mass somewhere else and would not help with getting serious tonnage to the moon and mars
For a company, matching products and services to demand is what matters. Being able to get more mass into orbit only matters if enough people are willing to pay to get stuff there. The analogy is that jumbo jets exist, but almost no passenger flights bother with jumbo jets because it's not economical. Unlike with civilian aviation we have yet to observe a natural experiment which would allow us to place an economically practical ceiling on rocket payload size, but it very much still remains plausible that something Falcon 9-sized is actually the sweet spot, especially given that Starlink is the only commercial offering that's pushing the existing Falcon 9 capacity. And yes, this completely ignores any mention of going to the moon or Mars, because although there may be incentives to do so (e.g. scientific incentives, political incentives, philosophical incentives), there is no economic incentive other than getting some government contracts which will be just as short-lived as Apollo was once the public loses interest.
Starlink is SpaceX's biggest revenue stream by far, and they are retiring Falcon 9 and quitting the contract / launch market, so they are matching very well with their own product, which is what they actually care about?
> And originally they were talking about basically building it like origami from a sheet of steel.
It turns out that sitting in your office wearing an adult nappy and snorting cat sedative until your bladder no longer functions might give you a lot of quite "creative" thinking, but it doesn't make you an engineer.
At some point Elon has to climb out of the K-hole and realise that these things are better left to proper engineers.
The original wasn't what shipped. From what I read the cheaper easier process wasn't, which isn't unusual.
It's also an ugly-ass car. If it had turned out to be super-reliable and cheap and "hackable" that would make up for it, even earn its strange look a cult following, but no it just ended up as an overpriced weird ugly-ass car.
Why would Tesla make "cheap" ? That's not their customer base.
Cheap hackable electric work truck (I imagine chassis with basic cabin that you can expand in various ways, like the EU van options have like half a dozen chassis) would be great but it's not something Tesla ever wants to make
>Why would Tesla make "cheap" ? That's not their customer base.
95% of their cars sold have been in the $30k to $60k range. They have long been the best bang for the buck electric car (in the US, since BYD isn’t allowed.
Who are their customer base? Musk seems to have decided to fire his actual customer base, but getting a new one more ideologically aligned with him hasn't quite worked out.
I know its not fashionable to have such pesky concerns as priority in US, but pedestrian safety was simply non-present, hence it was banned all over Europe. Not missing it here, not missing that fugly ego whim of a sick man at all.
All other things aside, the worst part of the Cybertruck's design, to me, was its sloped truck bed walls (on the sides). Anyone who frequently uses their truck bed will know that getting access to stuff quickly and easily is key. And the Cybertruck's sloped walls go too high for anything in the very back of the bed to be reached. That just seems like such an unnecessary functional miss.
The good: someone trying a radically new design. Polarizing like the Fiat Multipla or Pontiac Aztek or even the first Chrysler minivan, but credit for trying.
The bad: didn't seem to be very good as a truck (eg build quality). That would not have been too bad, but it's dangerous when the design already alienates some buyers. Carmakers need time to get it right, and that needs sales.
The terrible: Elon torching his reputation in all sorts of ways and essentially insulting his past and future customer base. The politics, the bait and switch over features, etc etc. Eventually people tire of it.
It's tragic, because for better or worse Americans love their trucks, so the team that solves the electric transition is doing the world a huge favor.
While I will happily admit, the initial Multipla looks awful both inside and out to my sensibilities, I have to defend it vs the Cybertruck. Purely from the practicality standpoint, it was ingenious, having three seats front and back while being small, light and cheap solved a real need and I do still see quite a few, especially compared to other Fiats from that time, because of it. It also has what I feel is the most impactful facelift of any vehicle ever.
Had the Cybertruck brought forward the manufacturing innovations that were alleged to cause the weirdness in its design, I could draw the comparison with the Multipla, but as it stands, it has all the visual appeal of one, with none of the practical reasons for it. Having something ugly for good reasons, I can appreciate, function over form to the nth degree. Looking awful just for the sake of looking awful, not so much. Cybertruck is the car equivalent of intentionally bad Balenciaga releases (like the plastic bag), wherein even with taste being subjective and beauty in the eye of the beholder, there is a point where it just becomes as close to objectively ugly as is possible.
Can't comment on the Pontiac, have never seen one outside Breaking Bad.
The whole part about the "sharp edged design" is quite misleading.
Yes sharp edges are an issue as they can very much make the difference between people getting killed in a car accident and them surviving.
But this wasn't even the biggest problem for selling it to the EU.
E.g. cars sold in the EU there are a bunch of standards for safety of pedestrians for slower speed impacts. The Cyber Truck is kinda not passing any (most?) of the standards. This also isn't just the Cybertruck in general US style trucks are more deadly (for pedestrians; especially for children) and the Cybertruck is just the cherry on the top.
Lastly even if it could be sold in the EU it is questionable if it would be profitable, given some of the quality issues surfaced, the likely small production/sells quantity (trucks aren't exactly beloved in large parts of the EU, neither needed and as an actual truck it doesn't do the best job as others have pointed out).
Chinese vehicles are cheap because they're sold under cost. It can't continue to be that cheap and places with a car industry like Europe are crazy to allow them to be sold there.
Laws and regulations around car dealerships are deeply ingrained into state and federal politics. I don't think we will see Chinese or Mexican EVs anytime.
Why do you spend time thinking about outcomes that will never, ever be realized? There is bipartisan support for anti-China protectionism. There is not bipartisan support for paranoid FOSS neckbeard concerns about radios that have been built into most cars since Onstar.
I remember 15 years ago when liberals were absolutely furious at companies relying on Chinese "slave labor" for making shoes cheap and cutting into US wages.
I myself have no strong opinion on the issue, and think protectionism can often be quite bad, but it's weird how things have flipped. Presumably because of reactions to one man's views.
I read stories about people burning to death inside Musk cars because he wanted to save a few cents on a door handle or something. I'm not interested in learning more because there are plenty of safer cars to choose from.
I have very little interest in electric vehicles, Tesla, Elon Musk, etc. But I still think the Cybertruck, at least the design, looks awesome. It looked like something you'd see in the "Another World" or "Out of this World" intro cinematic.
Both look extremely cool to me but Elon's behaviour is the only reason I'll never buy a tesla. Even though the cybertruck looks awesome but it's impossible for me to be seen in this. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd used a cybertruck in a BTTF remake
The cultural element is the difference. It's a suburban vehicle who wants to pretend it's a truck, exactly like the pompous suburbanite assholes who want to pretend they are rugged alpha types just because they drive a truck they don't really need: both would fall apart in a minute when faced with real problems.
The Countach was just the usual Lamborghini luxury scam, and I say that as someone who grew up a few km from the factory. Nobody cared if it was kinda crap inside, because it existed just to look like a cool car. A truck is supposed to, y'know, be a truck.
You don't see how an angled polygonal shape sold in 1974 might be more loved than the same angled polygonal shape sold in 2020?
You realize style evolves right?
That style was futuristic in the 70s. It is not futuristic anymore. A lot has happened since the 70s to change what the future should look like.
Ironically, I am finding myself thinking that all the supposedly "bland" electric cars nowadays finally look like cars from the future, simply by being normal car looking, with very slight and subtle styling accents.
Because that's what a future car looks like: Roughly the same aerodynamic profile but with electric motors. That's literally what everyone wanted in the first place, as was Elon's thesis for Tesla as more than a niche car company.
The Cybertruck aesthetic is stupid because it is literally a middle finger to what people want, as Elon himself noted.
I don't get why people are so stuck on "But it looks different" as a good thing.
It's a car. Why are you so stuck on needing your car to stand out? Why is it a problem for you if cars look the same?
Less than 50,000 of them ever built. And didn't SpaceX and the DoD (thanks, DOGE) buy about 2-3,000 of those between them? (I think SpaceX bought a thousand).
You might see "a lot of them" because they stand out and are "memorable".
To be fair, there are a lot of car companies that don't do big volumes. Lamborghini, for instance, takes about five years to sell that number across all models.
It looks like something that would be fun and cool to drive around in a video game. I would never get a Tesla for unrelated reasons, and would especially not get a Cybertrunk because it's not fit for purpose, but I thought the hate for the aesthetics was overblown.
But then I saw it in-person, and it looks indescribably weird and bad, akin to the uncanny valley. The problem is that it's a real vehicle and not in a video game.
I kept thinking the design was going to grow on me as I saw more of them on the road, but nope. I still think it looks unbelievably ugly. I do not think it looks like something that you'd see in Another World, it looks more like something I would have designed when I was fourteen playing with Lightwave.
There's someone near me who has one with a white wrap over it.
I see it parked, and I thought:
"If Kenmore had the wherewithal to manufacture 4wd electric chest freezers...that's what they'd look like."
...but I'm not offended by it. I think that sort of whimsical craziness is all too often missing from modern durable goods, so I'm glad it got built.
I'm even happier that its existence upset mincing, peevish little eurotwee Conde-Nasty scribblequeefs like this Wired author. If it'd guarantee him leaping off of a tall pier, I'd pay MSRP for a Cybertruck.
I legitimately would have bought it if they made it look more like a regular pickup truck, and if Elon didn't go full crazy.
I did buy a Model-Y shortly before his Trump endorsement, and then sold it for technical reasons.
On a cold January morning, I was pulling up to a stop-sign, didn't have any autopilot turned on, and the car accelerated.
I think there is just too much software between gas pedal and the machinery of the car. They're honestly kind of dangerous vehicles. The average person can't handle the responsibility of a self-driving vehicle.
I told all of my friends and family that I would not recommend the vehicle yet to a non-technical person, even when I was myself driving it and loving it.
Setting your experience aside, my national transport agency in Denmark recently approved Tesla full self driving because the data confirmed that it’s safer than the average driver. I think it’s both true that these cars can fault, and that they’re safer on average than humans. To be clear, Denmark is not alone. Many European countries have approved it for the same reason, and many more are evaluating. Holland is the toughest to pass, and they passed.
"Safer than the average driver" is great if all the below-average drivers start buying Teslas. But if you're converting drivers on the other end of the spectrum then the roads become less safe overall.
I wish someone who had access to the data would address this.
I do know that there is not much better than average driver! There is much worse than average: people who drive drunk, and a few other classes of people who shouldn't drive at all. However the vast majority are all about equal: in reasonable mental health and limited to the same eye and reaction times. A few people have and follow better training and so are slightly safer - but this is slight. Most people think they are better than average because they excuse their mistakes as a "one time mistake", while confusing "the other guy's" mistakes with the other guy must be a bad driver.
Yeah same. It was too strange looking for me and Elon’s turn to the far right kind of ruined Tesla for me. I ended up getting a F-150 lightning instead and it’s been a great experience. Unfortunately they stopped making those too.
> I think there is just too much software between gas pedal and the machinery of the car.
There's a shit ton of software between the gas pedal and the machinery of just about every car on the road today whether that be an ICE, hybrid, or EV. We're a long ways away from the go-go pedal directly pulling a cable opening the throttle plate.
Electric trucks in general seem terrible. You only see Rivians and Cybertrucks in urban settings, the electric F150 was discontinued. Anybody who knows how people that actually need trucks use trucks saw this coming, I never once saw a cybertruck used as a truck.
I always got the impression that the vast majority of the F150s are never used as trucks either. Americans just like really really big cars because fuel is cheap there and none of the cities are old enough that big cars are impractical.
Obviously it doesn't affect the electric vehicles but light trucks being excluded from CAFE def did a lot to acculturate americans to always buying a big car
No, the F150 has great sales numbers but this is mostly due to commercial/work use. And commercial buyers need trucks that can tow, haul, be fitted with large toolboxes, booms/cranes, winches, plows, etc. The F150 electric solved none of those problems.
You're dismissing a cultural aspect of the popularity of trucks in america. There is way more trucks in Texas than say in Indiana, or Massachusetts on the road. Texas is one of the only states where people still drive hummers. They're not all doing off-roads
Well that's true. Loads of F150s in service as work trucks though. Potentially many could be EVs but the added cost and need for charging infrastructure for a fleet works against that.
Yeah my neighbor has a Sierra EV truck and he claims 500 miles range towing a camper, which I doubt but he loves it. He's all-in on EVs, has a another car as well and solar on his roof to help charge them.
Yeah 205 kWh is a huge battery (and charging at 350 kW is faster than anything else except a semi). But I doubt the 500 mi number too. Maybe he was going downhill.
> Anybody who knows how people that actually need trucks use trucks saw this coming
I'm a current truck driver and very excited to swap out my ICE truck for a Slate next year. I need something that can haul my trash to the dump, grab a load of wood chips for the garden, and bring home the occasional sheet good from the home store.
I agree with your assessment as it applies to the Cybertruck or F150, but not the idea of an electric truck. Some people buy trucks because they need a light-duty hauling solution; unfortunately, the market seems to only want to sell luxury SUVs that happen to have truck beds.
cough small dump trailer (<3000 GVWR). Can be pulled by a light SUV. No shoveling those wood chips. Depending on where the trash is going, no having to lift that a second time either. I've carried 25 sheets of 3/4 ply in mine (and unloaded them by myself, as the tilting bed meant I could tilt up a bit and easily slide them off)
I have a hitch for my current truck and honestly a dump trailer wouldn't be a bad idea anyway for some use cases, but even if I had one I'd probably only use it when I had to. The convenience factor just being able to hop in and drive, or having the truck bed with you when you didn't plan on moving something just wins out.
I think the conveniences are still tradeoffs though. A separate vehicle is handy for being able to slowly collect things to get rid of in one later trip, or to store something you just got until you're ready to put it somewhere else (I've currently got what remains of a 1/2 yard of sand sitting in mine). And being able to just dump something and drive away is quite nice (especially when you've loaded it into the trailer using equipment to begin with).
On the other hand, I've never experienced being able to just haul something without a little planning first, so I don't miss it.
Trailers aren't a silver bullet. I own multiple trailers (one even has a crane on it) and will still use anything else given the chance because it's just such a hassle once the empty weight of your trailer gets above what's convenient to move around by hand (which it will if you want to beat what a half ton truck can do, not what's within the rating, but what it can do).
The thing about equipment is no matter what you've got, you're always going to want something bigger.
You just need to cover the bulk of uses, not every last thing you might need to do. I think the light SUV + utility trailer is a pretty good sweet spot, even better for many things than a pickup truck on its own. Like have fun lifting 20 sheets of plywood up onto a pickup truck and back down, assuming you've even got one with a long enough bed to support that whole pile.
And sure I'd imagine larger trailers get to be a hassle to move empty by hand, but isn't that what having more equipment is for? And isn't that well into the tier where you need a truck for a tow vehicle regardless?
Unless it's so small it roughly equals the utility capacity of a half ton truck a trailer is a big hassle. People choose to pay more for a truck because it "just works" with "no thinking" for a wide variety of stuff.
Man, you love needlessly combative framings. Being able to dump sure eliminates a different "big hassle". Personally I'd rather have to do some "thinking" than be manually lifting things unnecessarily (often twice). There are always tradeoffs, and I was merely mentioning a different option for people who are doing the occasional homeowner dump and mulch runs.
Not wrong. I combined my truck and SUV budget and bought a used X7 m50i and a small utility trailer. No joke it's the best pulling vehicle I have ever owned. Super heavy, super grippy, in trailer mode the torque comes on fast. It's brilliant. My old 03 Silverado sits even more now.
Most people driving trucks in the US don't use them as trucks, especially in cities. I think most people willing to take on a $1000/mo truck payment for their personal vehicle in the current economic climate are doing so for social reasons anyway. Whether the electric trucks on offer at the same price can compete on that front is a much more slippery question.
If we can get some affordable electric trucks in the US, it will be very interesting to see how the more rational segments of the market react once they are no longer priced out.
I've only ever heard positive things from every electric truck owner I know and this is coming from a market that's very truck-forward in terms of culture.
Unlike electric cars, the price for a used F-150 lightning is still a substantial fraction of new price. There is still substantial demand.
Work trucks are a very different market than for passenger vehicles. Their usage is a lot more consistent and known. This means that electric works very well for some work trucks and very poorly for others.
The other aspect of work trucks is that they're generally purchased by very conservative businesses who don't want to buy the bleeding edge, they want several years of reliability data before committing. The F-150 Lightning was cancelled just as that data was starting to come in.
Of course, most F-150's are sold as passenger vehicles rather than work trucks. Along with almost all Cybertrucks.
1. People who need them for work.
2. People who need to carry bulky loads
3. People who need to tow.
4. People who buy them for some form of self-expression.
The only real use case for electric trucks, imho, is construction site supervisors who do most around-town driving but may occasionally need to haul stuff. Their towing range is absolutely abysmal (F150 Lightning range dropped to about 90 miles when towing a moderate trailer!).
Not just construction site supervisors, but the actual workers also do around-town driving. Range is a nonissue for them. Driving from your home to the supply store to the customer site and back does not usually require 90 miles of driving.
I see electric Silverados and Hummers (not a truck, but effectively the same vehicle as the electric Silverado) all the time, usually pulling landscaping utility trailers (flatbeds with huge commercial lawnmowers, etc.). I have no idea if this is economic or not (they definitely aren't cheap) but I've heard electric towing can't be beat for responsiveness, torque, etc.
It's pretty economical. Towing about halves your range. So you're still paying quite a low gallons/mile equivalent. However, that decreased range is a killer. So it makes sense why you'd see them doing lighter duty local work like landscaping.
An acquaintance saved thousands of dollars (over ten thousand, easily) by using his Cybertruck while building a cabin up in the mountains. All those trips to the hardware store and picking up random building materials add up very quickly when you are going up and down the mountain for materials and the big box hardware store is two hours away.
Truck brained people are notoriously stubborn. If it isn’t like daddy’s old truck they simply can’t see past it
I live in the PNW and you see people not using their trucks as trucks every single time you go out on the road. This includes urban areas.
I’ve owned an F150 and an R1T and for camping, overlanding, snow trips, etc the Rivian is hands down the most capable vehicle I have ever driven. You couldn’t pay me to go back to a Ford
We recently had a guy drive 146 miles out of the cascades, to Oregon City, to get a replacement radiator for a Jeep after a trailside wreck. We don't know how to fix a Rivian when it breaks down, or where to get parts.
Parts availability for a new and/or low volume vehicle is always tough whether it's an EV or otherwise.
But process of replacing a radiator on a Rivian really isn't any different than replacing one on a Jeep.
Most people who work on any vehicle don't know what the fuck they're doing, there's plenty of people in Autozone buying their 3rd O2 sensor for their Jeep that's throwing a P0420 as well.
People who are towing a lot may like the idea of electric. However they need range, and EVs when towing don't deliver. It is too bad, I'd like a electric truck, but when I tow I'm trying to get someplace and EVs don't deliver.
It doesn't help that nearly all chargers are arranged such that I'd block important parts of the parking lot for half an hour if I was towing when I needed a charge, then I have a complex back out (where something is behind me that I need to avoid). Most gas stations are designed so my trailer might block a pump from someone else using it but otherwise I'm not in the way.
> People who are towing a lot may like the idea of electric. However they need range, and EVs when towing don't deliver. It is too bad, I'd like a electric truck, but when I tow I'm trying to get someplace and EVs don't deliver.
Depends on why you're towing something. My brother-in-law is a contractor, for example, and the first thing you do when you start your own contracting business is buy a big ass pickup and a trailer to haul all of your tools and materials to your job sites.
Agreed on the chargers though, sometimes it's difficult to use a charger even with a normal-sized car just because every manufacturer wants to put the ports in a different, weird and quirky place on EVs.
The range loss on an EV is comparable to the 5 MPG you are going to get with a 3/4 ton truck towing anything 10k pounds as well
The only actual difference is time you need to charge. Pull through charging stalls are ubiquitous where I live
And I just don’t know…how often are people towing loads over 100 miles regularly for this to be a problem? Where I live I see pavement princesses towing the occasional boat or landscapers towing gear and rocks.
Neither of those is going to max out the range on an EV truck in an average day
I've been seeing more and more JAC small pickups (I'm in Austin). They use small diesel engines. I kind of thought the era of small diesel engines was over (thanks VW), but maybe it's coming back?
Truly terrible for pedestrians. Modern trucks are already death traps with their super high front grills, multiplying the weight compounds the problem.
Vehicle mass is a significant factor in collisions between vehicles because taking two thirds of the impact is a meaningful increase over taking half of it. Heavier vehicles are much more dangerous to lighter vehicles.
It's basically irrelevant in pedestrian collisions because the pedestrian is already taking ~95% of the impact even from a lighter car and the <5% difference between that and an arbitrarily heavier vehicle is completely dwarfed by any of the other variables like the speed of the collision. For a pedestrian it's better to get hit by a freight train at 35 MPH than a 3000 pound vehicle at 39 MPH.
You're solving for force when the thing that causes the damage is (very rapid) acceleration. The total acceleration comes from the initial difference in speed between the two things that collide and the proportion of the acceleration applied to each object is inversely proportional to their relative masses.
If they have the same mass then they each take half. If one of them is 19 times heavier then the other one takes 95% of the acceleration. If one of them is six hundred trillion times heavier then the other one takes ~100% of the acceleration, but this is still only ~5% more than taking 95%.
Consider what happens if you walk at 2 MPH into a concrete pillar which is fully anchored into the Earth. The mass of the Earth makes the mass of your body look like zero with some zeros after it, so are you immediately crushed? No, but get launched out of a cannon into the pillar at 200 MPH and you're dead even if it's not anchored into the Earth.
You think cutting the weight of the truck is going to make it safer for pedestrians?
This is the silliest argument against the Cybertruck, IMO. Its forward visibility is significantly better than other full-sized trucks, yet people continue to bring up pedestrian safety every time the Cybertruck is mentioned.
F150 Lightning was ruined by the dealership network who had 0 interest or financial incentive to sell them. When they did sell them, they added huge markups.
The quality of the vehicle is actually quite high.
I wonder how much of this is due to politics. I always thought it wouldn't matter much to most people but earlier this year I tried to convince my wife to get a model Y for the family and there was no convincing her. The interesting thing is she doesn't even care about politics but just didn't want to buy a car that is associated to any political view. I guess that happens when you take such a hard stance, you alienate one entire side and the people in the middle that wanna stay out of it.
I noticed that the cyberpunk wedge cars that inspired it are 2 seaters… maybe this shape isn't right for much larger cars?
DeLorean is the real life 80s reference of course, but in cyberpunk revival media like the coupe in Ghost in the Shell 2017, the spinner in Blade Runner 2049—those cars are all much smaller cabins than the cybertruck
The dimensions felt off to me. I had it as a loaner and enjoyed it a bit, especially since it had HW4. But I would never buy one.
The size is just too impractical. It would never fit in my garage. On top of that, the standby drain was significant. Just sitting idle, it would lose 10 to 20 miles of range.
I would have liked a 3-row SUV based on the Cybertruck; but the Cybertruck was just too expensive to be competitive. At least the Model Y's price dropped (right after I bought one) to something more reasonable.
What's most frustrating is that I had to trade in my Model 3 for a 3-row SUV, and Tesla just didn't have anything competitive in that segment.
They wanted Cybertruck for the exoskeleton, made giga casting instead and then proceeded to never make the cheaper versions, hence never reached units of scale as well as a bigger market. I do believe they could have avoided this but instead stayed in the luxury market.
You could run much of this discussion about the hummer. Not all of course, because a bunch of half and mis truths about EV are being floated.
90% of this is "I liked it" or "I didn't like it"
The rest is "it didn't suit this use case so it's useless"
Fwiw I thought it was stupid, but it doesn't define what an EV truck can do, or their utility. I've no problem if people poke fun at them. I've no problem if people like them.
Why would they focus on "cybercab" over this. Everything that makes the cybercab cool will never be legal in a consumer product. Cybertruck is definitely more useful to an average person.
An average person has no use for a truck that costs more than twice what an average person makes in a year and half or more what an average person spends on an average house
the economics of Tesla , a company with lots of capital, renting out their fleet make more sense in a market of consumers with little disposable income.
I liked the styling. Thought about getting one. Got a chance to get in one the other day. and it was so uncomfortable. felt like sitting on a park bench. I thought this was supposed to be not a real pickup. Rather a suburban big old thing with blade runner styling and reviews said lots of comfort. No, just a big old vehicle, that's not even that roomy on the inside (hip room felt like that of my old integra), with the comfort of an 80's pick up. not much of a point to it.
I don't like the design but don't hate it either. At least the jaggedness is for a functional reason. There are uglier cars, about 10 of which are from Kia and Hyundai.
Fun fact from Denmark: you could never buy one here anyway. It never got EU type approval, mostly due to pedestrian safety rules (sharp edges, rigid steel body). Curious whether that limited market was part of why volumes stayed low.
I had a pre-order. The reason I canceled was because the delivered product had a lot less range and was much more expensive than previously announced.
There were other things that contributed to the decision, too: the announced "stressed skin" exoskeleton was panned in favor of adhering the body panels to the body with glue, it became clear that Tesla's profit and valuation were funding Elon's right-wing political project, and I would have preferred a solid-axle design.
The absurdity was not what was wrong with it. It's OK to be absurd. I really liked the stainless steel design. Less trail damage when off-roading and no need to worry about paint scratches causing body rust. The door wedge design? Meh. But it enabled the stainless steel body.
In the end, I want what the Cybertruck failed to deliver: a full-size electric pickup at a good price with excellent range. I currently have my eyes on the RAM REV. We'll see if that one gets axed, too.
Disabling Javacsript lets you read the article already. There's no need to visit archive.today, where you participate in executing DDOS attacks against anyone who criticizes the site's creator.
I think what also contributed to the commercial failure is that it actually looked great at the early prototype stage, but the production car turned out to be uglier. Most people don't notice this, but they feel it subconsciously.
Go find early pre-production Cybertruck photos and compare with the actual prod car. It became subtly bulkier, uglier, less streamlined, and IRL it looks even worse than on the photos. Probably they had to do this due to production difficulties or to meet some standards, or to cut costs, whatever. But it was a mistake.
I live in SF (and sometimes NYC), so those are the only places I've really seen them. They're enormous, and incredibly unwieldy in an urban environment.
I think they'll be a hard sell in rural areas, too... where the Cybertruck isn't really competitive with traditional pickups for the actual things they're used for.
It's cool, though. Even if you don't like the look, there's something whimsical about seeing a vehicle that doesn't look like every other car on the road. I just don't think there's a big enough market for it.
Truly one of the most baffling stories in recent automotive history. All they had to do was make a normal pickup truck with Tesla tech. Hell, go ahead and use it as the testbed for 48V, steer-by-wire and whatever else if you want to - but the amount of time and money wasted to make what was in the end an absolute monstrosity that failed to deliver on any of its price, performance and range promises strains credulity. Cybertruck is the most visible inflection point marking Elon's descent into madness.
They look quite silly but I really love it when a car manufacturer takes a chance and does something out of the ordinary. In a few years these are going to be really popular at car shows.
They can cancel it, but it will always symbolize the time period and culture associated with its creator, that probably just ended. I bet future generations will use its image that way.
Hopefully they make some sort of "Signature Edition" version as a last hurrah.
The upsides were the steer by wire which once you drive it feels amazing and an exterior surface unlike painted vehicles you can choose to neglect and it doesn't matter.
The major downside was the price. I feel if they could have gotten it in the mid/low 40K range for an entry model it would have sold more units.
I still hold that if they made a cyber van with steer by wire and an exterior surface, it would have sold like hot cakes. An electric van with long range, tight turning radius, and durable kid resistant body panels? Yes please.
I suspect the semi truck will be next on the chopping block. Tesla being merged into Spacex would have resulted in the shutting down of the car business and a focus on robots. I doubt that robots will be a money maker, it's only useful on mars because people can't live there.
I'm not a fan, but I was hopeful that the direct sales model would drive others to confront the dealership tax. Ford floated the idea with the Lightning, but faced a mutiny.
I am the exact target audience of their new Fathom, but I abandoned my preorder sign up process when I saw the phrase "dealerships set the final price".
I think the cybertruck appeals to a very narrow market. It's too expensive for most people who just want a big vehicle to get groceries and run kids to around, and doesn't really have any qualities that make it useful for commercial use, outside of being a rolling billboard. Unless it just really appeals to you and you have cash to burn, I don't know why you'd buy a cybertruck over a Ram/Ford/GM. A RAM 1500 w/ etorque costs half a cyber truck and gets decent fuel mileage... If you need a work truck a RAM 3500 is cheaper and will reliably haul 30-40k loads 12 hours a day and the warranty isn't void the second your tires touch dirt.
People who buy trucks as a status symbol want to be "tough". And Tesla clearly intended to appeal to "tough guys", it is big, powerful, and supposedly indestructible. Elon even twitted at some point that it would destroy the other car in a collision, a morally questionable comment, but the implications are clear, a though vehicle for people who don't give a fuck about others.
And then, they managed to break the unbreakable window during the presentation, followed by the rusty trucks, and most importantly, the whole fiasco with glued panels that came off. So, you market a tough vehicle, but it falls appart. Who is going to buy that?
While we could quibble on the exact percentage, I think that's the point. Why spend $100K on an ugly status vehicle, when you could just get any half-ton pickup quad-cab short bed and prove to the world how big of a truck you have, but only spend $50-60K?!
The Cybertruck is weird and a "status" symbol, but most people want to fit in, but also have the "nicest" looking status symbol, so they convince themselves that "this particular truck" is really nice. (And also if I own it, it's clear I do lots of hard physical things.)
I think the Fathom will outsell the Slate 10 to 1 despite costing more, because U.S. buyers have adapted to "luxury" in every trim level of vehicle. I mean, yes base level Corollas still sell quite well (but these days even those have features you dreamt about in a luxury sedan not too many decades ago.)
The Slate represents an ideology that combines the nostalgia of what trucks used to be (especially the Ford Ranger) with a modern EV powertrain, but most people don't actually want the stripped down basic vehicle, even if their eyes light up over the idea.
I also think that the reason we see so many crew cab trucks is because people are well and over the "move front seat forward and then squeeze yourself into the back" rear passenger experience the market used to accept when coupes and extended cab trucks had significant sales. The Slate not having 4 doors is going to be a big deficiency when it's cross-shopped against the Fathom.
> The Slate represents an ideology that combines the nostalgia of what trucks used to be (especially the Ford Ranger) with a modern EV powertrain, but most people don't actually want the stripped down basic vehicle, even if their eyes light up over the idea.
I have debated this extensively with some friends. I *jumped* at the slate pre-order precisely because it doesn't have any 'luxury' trim options. I don't want to pay out the nose for a fancy infotainment system that will use the cheapest possible under powered electronics from a decade ago, run a 10 year old version of android that spies on me, gets no useful updates...etc.
I certainly have my biases but I suspect that most people only _tolerate_ most of the painpoints w/ the various 'luxury' items in their cars and if given the opportunity to start simple and upgrade they would.
> but most people don't actually want the stripped down basic vehicle
Perhaps. But if you put two options side-by-side and show people what they get at the two different price points, I'd bet that the ~30k slate compared to the ~ 50k typical new car price will get a decent chunk of people thinking about what _else_ they could do with 20k in savings.
>I'd bet that the ~30k slate compared to the ~ 50k typical new car price will get a decent chunk of people thinking about what _else_ they could do with 20k in savings.
The overwhelming majority of new car purchases is the US aren’t based on sales price, but monthly payment.
For the vast majority of buyers, an extra $50 a month for some luxury features is the easiest upsell in the world.
They simply don’t think through the savings, they think “I want heated seats, better sound, etc”
Maximizing shareholder value is not the most important consideration. The most important consideration is don't go bankrupt. Once you have a product that sells, you can start asking, well how can I maximize shareholder value? But you have to make those sales in the first place or you're going to go bankrupt and that is far worse for shareholders than not getting maximum value.
Successful companies well understand they don't know exactly what maximizing shareholder value requires. They are always making small experiments to see what really works in the market. Many of those they know will fail and in turn cost shareholder value because of a bad investment. But you have to try bad investments in order to find one that is good.
It’s also important to remember that while some people talk like there’s a legal responsibility to maximize shareholders value which forces businesses to make decisions focused on short-term profits, those people are simply wrong. There’s an extraordinary level of deference given to executive discretion which means it’s quite rare to see successful lawsuits for anything plausibly good-faith. For example, right now there’s a fad to lay people off but any business which chooses instead to invest in their capacity is unlikely to even be threatened with a shareholder lawsuit because no court in the country is going to say that “we are investing in long-term capacity” was clearly wrong.
I have a slate preorder but it's a niche vehicle. It's a small 2 door 2wd pickup that can't meaningfully tow and has a 200 mi range.
It's not going to appeal to people who want a truck as a symptom of fragile insecurities around their masculinity and that's a biiiig part of the US truck market
Look at the F150 lightening to see the failure of electric trucks. Chevy, Dodge and Ford all have, and it shows. Chevy's electric Silverado has a lot more range because more people want a truck for towing than the 1% that hacker news claims, and so range became and issue. Ford and Dodge are instead looking at plug in hybrids for the future: use an engine when towing, and battery for acceleration and shorter trips.
Trucks are a status symbol in the USA. EVs were becoming acceptable in the mainstram, hence the initial surge in sales, but that has cooled off since 2024. Now very few outside of the big tech cities are spending money on EVs. Hence the fate of the electric F-150 as well.
Most vehicles are used to get one person to and from work every day. There are a lot of people who don't have kids or only have one kids and so they don't need use passenger space or hauling capacity. The Cybertruck is aerodynamically terrible, but if people are not using it as a truck, well I guess it's transport that works for them.
However, people are talking about the same truck as if it is a truck. And it's a terrible truck for people who need a truck. On the other hand, a lot of other trucks are also terrible at being a truck for the people who need a truck. You have to go into the three-quarter ton or one-ton range to find a decent truck these days, even though a modern half-ton probably has more power and weight carrying capacity than a 30-year-old three-quarter ton truck. The way it's set up means it's not going to work as well as a truck. The 30-year-old truck is going to have a longer bed, which is something that someone who needs a truck is going to want in the truck.
Very frustrating that trucks have morphed into tank-like SUVs with small beds tacked on back. Expensive and has every fancy feature one could want ... except the thing that makes it a pick-up truck
I have very mixed feelings about the Cybertruck. Personally I absolutely hate it, it's just not my cup of tea and I would never in a million years buy one. However as a general lover of cars, I have to appreciate just how striking the design is and how it was a complete departure from pretty much any other car on the road.
There's nothing quite like the Cybertruck and I don't think there ever will be again.
Largely agree with your mixed feelings. When the Cybertruck was revealed, I thought it was atrociously ugly, but I appreciated something radically different in a market of converging (and IMO boring) styles. I could see the style being more successfully applied as a Cybercar / Cybercoupe.
Brings me to a point I'd like to make: it boggled my mind that Tesla decided to execute the 'Cyber' aesthetic via a pickup truck, particularly after the US auto industry ramped up marketing the pickup truck's familiar shape as a cultural facet during/after the Great Recession and the fuel economy regulation changes.
Tesla could've capitalized on the billions Ford, Chevy, Dodge, and others spent in the 2010s marketing pickup trucks as God's gift to humanity, but instead decided -that- was the best market to try a complete novelty in. It makes no rational sense -- I've heard it ultimately came down to Musk stubbornly wanting the Cybertruck, but I don't know if that's factual.
I love my Cybertruck. It's absolutely amazing for road trips with my dog. I watch movies and work on my projects (using a voice app I built) while FSD drives. It's basically a mobile apartment for me. I sleep comfortably in the truck bed when needed. I installed MOLLE panels on the L-tracks in the bed and 3D printed various accessories.
Sad to see it go but glad I got mine. Oh and kids love it. My Sentry mode clips are full of kids asking their parents to take pics with it.
Winding down production of this abomination isn't enough. The ones already on the road should be rounded up, crushed, and recycled. This is urban blight on wheels. Citizens have a right to streets free of these eyesores.
Musk was a fool to mistake the hollering of a small group of enthusiasts for that of the truck-buying U.S. population. Nobody was actually wanting for the CyberTruck. He should've listened to his marketing people and not be guided by social media and his right-wing instinct.
Then again, he's a con-man who's now quietly distancing himself from CyberTruck ("I had nothing to do with it") and moving on to the next con-trick: the CyberCab.
Well, if you're dreaming, instead of a cyber truck at 40K, wouldn't you want instead a Chauffeured Rolls-Royce and the Swedish bikini team to keep it maintained?
When I want to go to the symphony I want a chauffeured Rolls-Royce. I don't care how it is maintained, that is the chauffeurs job. If I want to see under dressed girls I'll go to a strip club after if, or maybe hire an escort to sit next to me.
When I want a truck to "go mudding", the fun is driving it through the mud. Maybe my chauffeur is tows the truck to the mud pit, but I'm getting it stuck in the mud myself. Sometimes the local cheerleaders are holding a fund raiser and I'll pay them to clean the truck after I'm done.
When I want a truck because I need to haul things - I want to pay someone else to take care of it when I'm not around.
In reality I'm not rich enough for the above. I do a lot of maintenance myself because I can't afford to pay someone. I have one vehicle that is a bad compromise for everything because I can't afford more.
In reality I have moral objections to under dressed girls and so I'm not going to the strip club or hiring escorts. But if I was that type I wouldn't be paying them to maintain my car. I have had the cheerleaders clean my car while I watched, but I wasn't paying them to be "eye candy" even though I did enjoy looking, and the next week is was the boys wrestling team (which I don't enjoy looking at) that got paid just as much for the same job.
In reality I'd prefer public transportation, but that is a different story.
Worth clicking. Ton of people who actually want the cybertruck to continue. I can't believe there are still people who still didn't realize what colossal idiot Musk is.
Sad, but reminds me of the Model S line teardown in making space. CB truly was ahead its time in how it pushed Tesla's tech, and will always be futuristic. Still, I can't help but to feel like it died too early. Its spirit lives on in the Roadster, and I sure hope this won't be the last "truly exceptional" Tesla among their "quality sleeper" EV's.
No other car is as awe-striking to see on the streets, especially in the EU. This will be the Mustang Fastback or Testarossa of the 2040's ...
I mean as much as I love thd idea of actually doing something bonkers, the lack of sales seemed inevitable to most I assume, so that should come as no surprise. Should have stayed a concept car.
I wouldn’t be surprised if cost were the only reason its sales weren’t even lower. If it’s expensive it’s at least a plausible status symbol. At a reasonable price it’s just an incompetently designed utility vehicle.
Behold the Toyota Hilux [1], a truck so reliable that it is the truck of choice in many developed nations and even less developed ones. It's so cheap and reliable it became the platform for a war [2]. It also has a truck bed equivalent to a Ford F150, a vehicle significantly larger. But you can't buy a new Hilux or equivalent in the US because cars younger than 25 years cannot legally be imported [3] (to stop grey imports on Mercedes in the 1980s, originally) and because of CAFE standards [4].
Electric vehicles obviously don't have the hurdle of meeting emissions standards so Tesla, or any other company really, had (and has) the opportunity to create a small, cheap, mass market utility truck that no gas-powered vehicle can compete with. This is what the Cybertruck should've been.
There have been breakdowns of the Cybertruck and it is such an incredibly bad design. Things like the weight of stainless steel panels but with an aluminum frame. Why is that a problem? Because aluminum is prone to catastrophic failure with the up and down motion of towing a heavy load than stainless steel simply isn't [5].
The rumor has been that the only thing propping up Cybertruck demand is Elon forcing his own companies like SpaceX to buy them [6]. Other than that, the Cybertruck became a weird political statement [7]. Those people are getting crucified on resale. It's even a trend on Tiktok and elsewhere to watch these trade in videos. People who paid $150k+ are getting <$70k less than 2 years later.
Anyway, I'm shocked no US manufacturer is tackling the EV small utility truck market. Yes there was the F150 Lightning but it's still too big (and thus expensive).
Oh man, I was wondering if anyone was gonna bring up Slate.
I try not to get excited about stuff, but the idea of The Next Big Thing in Cars being a total lack of garbage nonsense screens and giving us back CRANK CRANK WINDOWS -- this is pure joy.
Wheels. Seats. Motor[1]. Box to keep rain off. Done.
Oh you attached a bed to that? Double awesome.
[1] Enough top end cruise speed for American interstates.
The Tacoma is more like the modern Hilux. I should've been more specific. The 1980s and 1990s Hilux weighed in at 1000-1200kg. Now it's 1700-2100kg. It's a lot bigger truck. Those 1980s and 1990s trucks were indestructible and so easy to service.
Now I get why the gas powered Hilux has changed. Emissions standards have changed. Fuel efficiency is more important. Modern cars are full of computers and microcontrollers. But an EV is relatively simple. It's one of the big advantages. Yes you have an OS and it's not just turning the ignition but the drive system itself is fairly simple, the thing that turns battery power into movement (compared to ICEs). No moving parts (in the engine), basically.
You could absolutely make a small EV utility truck. Remember that part of the reason why people were excited about the Cybertruck when it was announced was the price point (~$35k). Of course it turned out to be 3 times that.
Look at what BYD is doing [1]. Now these are PHEVs rather than pure EVs. Other automakers are making smaller pure EV trucks.
> A Tacoma is basically the US model of the Hilux.
This is a very common misconception Americans believe about the hilux. I’ve owned multiple generations of both on different continents.
The Tacoma is much heavier, but has a much lower payload rating. It has way less torque, and gets much worse fuel economy. The Tacoma only comes with a regular bed- no cab chassis, no tray back, etc.
The Tacoma is much more expensive. The Tacoma only exists in two countries. The hilux is one of only a few truly global vehicles.
One is a genuine work utility vehicle, one is a lifestyle vehicle.
They have never shared a frame, engine, transmission, axles or body panels.
The Cybertruck wasn't really designed as a volume item, it was designed as the testbed for Tesla's next gen tech (ethernet-based fieldbus, 48V tech). You can do only so much in the lab, and sometimes you have to push your tech into production to find the last few% of failures, which will cost you dearly if you actually put them into your volume sellers.
I mean it's probably not that comforting for owners to unknowingly have signed up for a beta test, but that was the plan for Tesla for a while with the Cybertruck.
This was also the reason for sloppy stuff like steel panels glued to the aluminium frame, and not following up on their initial promises - the car morphed from a serious project into a low volume testbed sometime during its production.
Tesla seems to be killing its non volume cars the S and X are dead as well, I've heard rumors the Model 3 might be on its way out.
As a Tesla owner and fan, their 5 year consumer strategy is unclear. Their 3 upscale / luxury products have been canceled, and there's no clear "growth" roadmap for their existing owners. And although they have exceptional technology, innovation for the Tesla badge has stalled.
I can tell they are likely investing all of their production capacity into Cybercabs, in order to tap into a growing rental market (mostly short term, possibly some long term), and adjust to shrinking vehicle ownership.
But as someone who enjoys driving, car ownership, road trips, spontaneity -- I don't have a clear picture of what my next Tesla purchase would be in 5 years.
I love that they took a swing for the fences. Car makers are so fucking safe these days. Sadly it didn’t land, but it’s awesome that it exists. I think if it had used a more conventional design it would have done so much better. Owners report an incredible driving experience. I also think battery technology held it back. It was originally advertised as having much better towing range, and production came in very underwhelming. This made it much less appealing as a utility vehicle. It ended up being used for picking up groceries and this wasn’t broad enough a market.
Not every swing is a home run. You can win with a few home runs or a lot of singles.
The only guaranteed way to lose is if you stop swinging. And Tesla has stopped swinging. They haven't revealed a mass market consumer vehicle since 2019.
There is some incredible technology in the Cybercab that allows them to be built cheaply in high volume. Instead Ford looks like they are going to be the first Western consumer vehicle out of the gate with the unboxed production method with their Ford Fathom. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese are ahead here too.
Hasn’t Musk been clear that he’s abandoning traditional passenger vehicles? He’s retooling for Cybercab and Optimus. Model Y and 3 are selling too well to abandon but there won’t be new models. We’d be lucky for refreshes.
Agreed, I love to see long shots even if they don't land, and in this case the price/performance fundamentals were likely the biggest problem. The "limited TAM for a bold stand-out design" was probably another, but Elon also didn't do any favors by vigorously adopting the opposite politics of his customers at the same time he was trying to launch a bold/iconic design.
I disagree. Teslas used to be nice designs and pleasant to see on the street. Cybertruck and Cybercab designs are an affront. Intentionally ugly. I’m glad we don’t see a lot of trucks on the street, and I despair at the thought of millions of Cybercabs about.
The 3/Y and the screens had lots of design and product innovations. Iterating on those lines would’ve been quite nice.
The DeLorean wasn't taken seriously when Back to the Future was released either... it looks like a cool car now, mostly because of the movie, but back then it was considered a joke of a car and the company went bankrupt less than two years after it began production.
Yeah I could totally see a similar trajectory for the cybertruck. I think it will be more popular in its death than it was in its life. Every elementary aged boy I know thinks it's really cool.
The Cybertruck will never be looked back on as a cool car, since it's existence is inextricably linked to doomed social and political movements. Like the ideology it represents, it's presence is impossible to ignore, but in the worst way possible. Plus it's a shitty truck.
It can never shake the "Ugh, get a load of this guy" factor.
no one here will say it because the Musk glazing is crazy, but it was always his own little pet project, he really pushed for it and now it's obvious that it's stupid and a failure and he was wrong for entertaining this idea
Truly the peak of 2020s antisocial car design. The car looks designed to plow through other vehicles, barriers, and pedestrians without slowing down to count the bodies. "Bulletproof bodypanels" is only a selling point on a mass production car if you routinely piss people off enough to make them grab iron. Folks who need pickup trucks for the utility they provide have stuck with trucks that are actually fit for purpose. It was a way to signal to the world that you had extremely poor judgement and low standards.
There are plenty of people who drive pickups because they like them, not because they fulfil a utilitarian purpose, and not all of them are assholes.
I would say the issue is more that there has been little to no progress in mainstream consumer car aesthetics in the past 25 years. It used to be that you could clearly tell a 50s car from a 60s car from a 70s car from an 80s car, etc. Everything from the past 25 years or so is pretty indistinguishable, so something comes along with a clear but possibly misguided aesthetic vision, its naturally going to appeal to some people.
The Musk strategy is to quietly drop failures/broken promises from a previous hype cycle after kicking off a brand new hype cycle to take its place.
This is entirely consistent with his tried and true strategy to constantly redirect attention forward to the distant future, and never stay idle long enough to encourage looking back at the ever growing pile of ideas that didn't work out.
It's called Supervised Full Self Driving (FSD) and that is an accurate name given it controls every aspect of the vehicle's operation, only requiring the driver to pay attention as a supervisor. And, essentially, the same software and hardware available on a Model 3 and Model Y is present on the CyberCabs that are driving people around a few cities, now, without input mechanisms. Elon is a PoS, and it took a decade longer than he said, but the cars are driving themselves.
Yes thankyou for confirming my point.
How did I know you would come and be pedantic about it?
I live in Europe, and here its not called Full Self Driving because regulators disagree with you that the car is driving itself. Therefore your original statement of "It's called Supervised Full Self Driving (FSD) and that is an accurate name given it controls every aspect of the vehicle's operation" is not true here at all.
If the US is happy with Elon lying about his cars abilities then thats on them. Not surprising really judging by the mess that is the USA in recent years.
Trumps current mess with huge increases of cost of living, and subsequent popularity decline is an example of what happens when you let business run free.
This isn’t news to anyone following the business. I’m pretty sure it was announced months ago that model X and Cybertruck (and maybe Model S too) were being discontinued.
And Model 3 and Y have always been 95%+ of the cars Tesla delivered.
I'm convinced that Elon made it just because he thought it would be funny. "Let's make a truck that looks like it came out of a 90s low-polygon video game! That'll be hilarious!" He never cared for one moment if it was actually a good product.
The poor people that bought them were the butt of his joke.
The first Tesla was based on a Lotus Elise. It was stunningly good looking. It changed people's minds that an electric car had to look like a glorified golf cart.
Later cars from Tesla looked more generic but still like looked like regular cars.
The cybertruck seems like a throwback to the old electric cars that looked like something out of nerd's sketchbook.
The competition isn’t very fierce but he sure did squander his advantage in the EV segment to get beaten to market by a company that had never shipped an EV before
Rivian selling the first EV pickup truck even after Elon’s announcement of the cybertruck is pretty embarrassing
Tesla's forgotten how to make actual products people want to buy thanks to its meme stock status, government handouts, state & federal tax and carbon credits, not to mention the absurdly high tariffs on foreign competitors. It has received zero actual feedback from the market so the new products are based on ketamine high visions rather than market needs.
It'll probably be folded into SpaceX by the time the feedback arrives.
> The issue stems from the brake rotors, and the report says more severe road conditions "may strain" the stud holes in the wheel rotor, causing cracks to form. If the cracks persist and worsen, it may result in the wheel detaching entirely.
> In a recent off-road escapade at the King of the Hammers event in Johnson Valley, California, a Tesla Cybertruck experienced a mechanical failure resulting in one of its wheels snapping off. The incident, captured over the weekend, has raised eyebrows about the durability of Tesla's much-touted electric truck.
I can't remember the specific video, but I recall seeing someone breakdown some of the poor materials/engineering choices for "truck" use cases and of the mass of the CT.
Tesla's forgotten how to make actual products people want to buy thanks to its meme stock status, government handouts, state & federal tax and carbon credits, not to mention the absurdly high tariffs on foreign competitors.
It has received zero actual feedback from the market so the new products are based on ketamine high visions rather than market needs.
It'll probably be folded into SpaceX by the time the feedback arrives.
So the big plan here is to just keep making Model 3 and Model Y?
I'm guessing the Model 3 will be next on the chopping block.
FSD is a serious moat. I'll give Tesla that. But they've really decided to stop being a car company. Maybe they're just scared of Chinese brands.
I think Musk has some specific things he'd like to do in the next 10 years and running a car company isn't something he cares about. So he's willing to destroy the company and the hard work of thousands of engineers, to build stupid robots, stupid cyber cabs, and phenomenal electric trucks in stupid angular wrapping.
I have no idea what the Tesla board is smoking, because Musk does not care about money, the company, its customers, or its employees.
in the past ten years:
60,000 cybertrucks?
350,000 model X
200,000 model S
0 roadsters
0 cybercabs (stupid)
a ton of model Y, which is why nobody wants one but are forced to buy it anyway because of FSD.
it's amazing how one guy gets to destroy an iconic car company and absolutely nobody in the organization pushes back.
>The US EV maker only began delivering the Cybertruck to customers in late 2023. According to Kelley Blue Book, the company only sold 20,237 Cybertrucks in the US last year, down 48% from 38,965 in 2024. Before the pickup truck launched, Musk had predicted annual sales of 250,000 units.
The Cybertruck should tell you how stupid Elon really is. Its a coffin on wheels, and rightfully banned in the entire EU. His next stunt was to make a flying car, thats basically vaporware, and, also banned literally everywhere.
I can assure you there are much uglier vehicles out there. I once stopped at a stoplight and there was this car ahead of me, I don't know which make or model but when I saw it I just laughed out so loud. I think it was Korean or Japanese, but I'm not sure.
You rarely see them, probably because they're so dog-ugly that hardly anyone buys them.
side-topic: why trucks are so popular (especially USA)? Is it all in the fake testosterone virtue signalling and pretending to be hard working country people?
To me trucks are the most useless type of vehicle apart from niche utilitarian cases in farming or construction. Super heavy, gas guzzling, open bed, compromised handling, pedestrian crushing death machine.
If you want big family hauler, grocery getter: mini-vans, wagons.
If you are in trades: van, box truck or flatbed box truck (where bed is useful shape and size, and all sides can be removed if needed).
No, you don't need 3 tonne vehicle with bajillion horsepower as a daily, because you may need to pull a trailer with your inflatable dinghy once in a two years.
If you want truck adjacent vehicle, get Toyota 4runner or Highlander. Humongous cars, vast and closed cargo space. It will pull a trailer, it will haul all your stuff and family.
Because vehicles are a compromise. A truck can do everything a sedan can. A sedan cannot do everything a truck can. A flatbed truck can do more than a smaller truck - but it also is bigger and not easy to drive because of the size. The costs to own extra vehicles is very high and so people won't own different a vehicle for each use (renting is not a good answer - too often I've gone to rent something and it was sold out. Also most rentals have restrictions on use)
> To me trucks are the most useless type of vehicle apart from niche utilitarian cases in farming or construction. Super heavy, gas guzzling, open bed, compromised handling, pedestrian crushing death machine. If you want big family hauler, grocery getter: mini-vans, wagons.
Minivans and trucks get similar fuel mileage. For the average family there are not enough kids to need a minivan.
> If you are in trades: van, box truck or flatbed box truck (where bed is useful shape and size, and all sides can be removed if needed).
Obviously you are not in the trades and don't know anyone in them. I've heard plenty of people in the trades debate the merits of truck vs van. They are compromises and there is no clear winner.
> you don't need 3 tonne vehicle with bajillion horsepower as a daily, because you may need to pull a trailer with your inflatable dinghy once in a two years.
If I need to tow something even once every two years then I need to own a truck. I've tried to rent a truck to tow something - turns out most rental contracts don't allow towing. There are exceptions, but the cost is so high, and finding a place to rent is so inconvenient that I will just own my own truck instead - it is worth it.
> Obviously you are not in the trades and don't know anyone in them.
Well bold of you to assume anything about me.
Where I am from:
- not a single trades person came to my place or anyone I know of - with a truck. It's either van or box truck all the time;
- only personal connection for legitimate truck use I know is electricity line repair, because of true off-road needs and often start-stop type of work;
Only trucks (ala F150) I've seen are emotional support trucks with 6L V8 gas guzzling engines taking 2 spaces in the parking lots and constantly jumping over curbs due to abysmal turning radius and their ridiculous size, that never have seen a spade in their bed.
> If I need to tow something even once every two years then I need to own a truck.
No you don't. Any conventional SUV/wagon can have a hitch and easily tow. How do you think half of Dutch or British tow their mobile homes every July on their summer holidays? It's not 5.7L small block V8 - that's for sure.
I wasn't pro truck until I lived on an island with limited infrastructure. Once you need to take care of some of your own infra, a truck is a great tool, beating your full list. That said, a beater truck is generally preferred -- you want reliable, cheap and something that you don't care if it gets banged up.
Not a “truck guy” but I have a cybertruck because it’s the only self-driving electric car that has enough room to carry my family’s stuff when we go to the lake, ocean, camping, etc. My ideal car is a van or large SUV but there aren’t electric self-driving versions of those yet.
Well this thread has taught me that “I don’t like Elon, but “ appears to be the new pronouns for people that find it important to signal their left wing bona fides.
So this leaves Tesla with two car models, a Robotaxi that doesn't work very well, and a humanoid robot operation that didn't ship product on schedule[1]. Why is this worth a 1.4 trillion dollar market cap?
The cybertruck was announced like a bad meme and now dies as one too. What we see is the logical and long overdue conclusion of a story that lasted longer than it should have.
We can add the truck’s 25,000 annual unit sales versus Musk’s 250,000 prediction to the long list of his other failed and bogus predictions. The top of that list has many contenders: date of mars colonization, date of driverless car, everything about his ridiculous tunnel system in Las Vegas. Yet the media regularly credulously report, “Elon Musk says…”.
I really just wanted a cyber van. Cheap driverless car for a distracted mom to haul a bunch of kids. Why didn’t they deliver that. The model X with the gull doors hit my head. The model y is too small. If Elon were a soccer mom it would be better.
Someone knows the government infinite money machine, which Tesla, SpaceX, Solar City, and many other Musk companies took advantage of, is about to get cut off.
I still remember the marketing for the Cybertruck. Tesla teased a partial neo-noir silhouette of the truck which had everyone guessing which part it belonged to. Childhood fantasies about Blade Runner designs were conjured in people’s imaginations. Fanboys were truly generous with the design expectations. Embarrassed to admit now, I did go to the unveiling and when it rolled out I thought this must be a gag and the real Blade Runner would follow any second now, only to realize that this ugly thing was it. If you could only see the collective shock amongst the attendees. Only the drunks were cheering. Then the boss had the designer throw a ball through the window. Twice.
(Edit: the actual designer had the assistant designer throw a ball through the window.)
No fan of Elon here but I prefer Cybertrucks to Hummers based solely on observed owner behavior. Hummer drivers are DICKS. Cybertruck drivers are just driving around in some metallic 3-D geometry with little (observable) ill intent
He wishes. Delorean is a modern classic, regardless of commercial success. Cybertruck will go down like the H1/H2; something entirely emblematic of the worst excesses in the time it was conceived and marketed in, that later generations will go "did they really think that was cool?".
Part of that was a NHTSA rule that hilariously (from 79-82) made 85mph speedometers mandatory; but even later, because of tooling costs, those dials persisted.
Not that the DMC-1's PRV v6 and tall Renault 5-speed were gonna make getting to 85 easy...
I recently had a Tesla service call at my house (routine maintenance for my Y). He showed up in a darkly wrapped Cybertruck. It didn’t occur to me that they’re just dogfooding their own vehicles to use them up.
Hilarious but a logical end state option for them.
The Ford F150 lightning was killed because of low demand and loosing the company money. That looked just like all the other F150s and that didnt help it. I dont see you criticising them them.
I don't see a reason why there isn't a market for a EV pickup truck. Maybe the American public simply isn't ready for it. Or the Lighting may have been too expensive compared to its ICE counterpart.
But the CyberTruck is just one man's doodle-after-an-acid-trip kind of design.
Yeah I agree, someone will crack the EV truck market eventually.
Ford failed due to massive production costs which they assumed would go down as the tech got better. They bet wrong, and ended up loosing tens of thousands per unit.
Battery tech needs to get better and cheaper for it to work properly.
You can say that about almost every failed product ever. The AI pin that was just a wrapper to chatgpt could've been amazing if it did everything it promised.
In what world would a Cybercab displace something like a Model 3 or Y? It's a two door coupe. Are you thinking automation? That's already coming to the 3/Y.
The Model Y charging curve is notably bad, I agree, in particular when equipped with the big Texas batteries Tesla wanted for the Cybertruck. But the counterpoint is that even peaking out at 250kW, I usually only spend 10-15 minutes charging my Model 3. The weak charging curve only exposes itself as an issue on marathon road trips where you are running it up from 10-80 repeatedly on a tight schedule.
And in any case, the better charging curve hasn't helped the competition put a meaningful dent in Model Y sales. The leading competitor is the Ford MME, and the charging curve on it is possibly weaker than the Model Y. It still outsells the Ioniq 5.
Car companies have long been on a cycle for their vehicles. It varies but generally we could say every seven years they're going to do a major redesign of a car. So I think it's safe to say the Model Y and Model 3 won't be sold in seven years. The question is, in seven years, will they have a different model, loosely based on the current Model Y and Model 3, that carry those same names? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe Tesla goes bankrupt and the cars aren't for sale. Maybe Tesla continues and the names exist.
They may try a bigger refresh than they did at the six year point, but I imagine they will keep the model names in any case.
But with such strong sales, the incentive is not to rock the boat. Incumbents refresh more often because they have a lot of competition.
Tesla does not have any meaningful competition for the Model Y. The closest competitor is the Ford MME, and just behind it the Ioniq 5. But Tesla still sells like 3-4x as many Model Ys as both of those combined.
The Model 3 has even less direct competition. But that's probably because the sedan market as a whole is not as strong as crossovers. The biggest competitor to the Model 3 is probably the Model Y. And to put some context on this -- even as a sedan, the Model 3 outsells the Subaru Outback. Anybody wondering whether Subaru will stop selling Outbacks?
I was hoping they'd release a much more refined v2 with better proportions, uniform panels, darker tinted steel, and better tolerances for panel gaps. I still feel the design while utterly in a different orbit against whatever else on the road, leaves a lot to be desired. Especially the rear 60% of the length. I cannot get over the weird tadpole tail.
The Zeekr with sliding doors that Waymo is using seems like a way better concept for a robotaxi. Still fits in a standard parking space but can carry a group at need without being terribly inefficient for a single person.
> A people mover that moves the minimum of people (2)
You meant maximum? Though minimum would be fun, too: taxi won’t start unless you agree to socialize and chat with a random stranger. As soon as silence is detected it pulls over and the ride ends.
Ah yes. That makes sense now. But I guess the minimum of people for taxis would be one in general. A small taxi for one person is plausible. Zero won’t work as it would be a delivery vehicle only then.
90% of taxi rides are 1 person 95% 2 so its based on, you know, business intelligence rather than your hot take which is anti Elon rhetoric like most of this thread or any for that matter here (keep thinking this is reddit)
The cybertruck is baffling to me because it has the political connotations of a Hummer, but the beauty and gadget-obsession of a Pontiac Aztek.
IMO the Aztek is a perfect comp to the Cybertruck, actually. Both were crammed with features intended to revolutionize their market segments. Like the Cybertruck, the added value from those features was... dubious, at best.
Both are hideous. Both had a longer production run than you'd expect given their lofty goals and poor sales.
The Aztek has taken on a sort of ironic-cool status among some car nerds. It wasn't a bad car per se, just ugly and weird. Nowadays it's just a funny curio of the early 2000s.
It'll be interesting to see how the Cybertruck ages in the public eye. With time, maybe it'll be easier to separate it from its context as a Hummer for tech douchebags, and it'll just be a funny ugly car with some goofy features.
Realism has a chance again, now can Americans also wind down the cult-like following of figures like Musk, Trump, actors, athletes, and the likes? It's Unamerican.
European royalists never were this crazy about their objects of affection.
> European royalists never were this crazy about their objects of affection.
Michael Fagan (a British citizen who intruded into Queen Elizabeth II's bedroom in Buckingham Palace in 1982) was reportedly somewhat enamoured of the Queen.
The hardcore carriage way lining flag wavers of the UK queue for hours and often have homes that could feature on Desperate Hoarders for the sheer number of coronation themed teapots and tea cosies that line every sill and proto ledge.
Even the UK's most notorious anarchists and anti-christs sing God Save the Queen.
It did sort of identify/lean into something that I think many people don't really want to acknowledge, which is, yes the "truck" has become a status symbol rather than a work vehicle.
Had Musk leaned into it as the "luxury"/GT of trucks (like the H2), there probably would've been less pushback. Granted he's functionally incapable of not just lying about things being the best every and setting stupid impossible goals, but I do think there's outcomes where we see more things "akin" to the cybertruck, leaning into the Pavement Princess market.
I can only imagine how many people told Musk that the Cybertruck was a horrible idea and he completely ignored them and probably fired a lot of them. Musk basically re-enacted the Simpsons episode where Homer's brother lets him design a car and it is so bad it bankrupts the company.
Tesla is now two cars away from offering no cars? There's just model x and y which was built off of x. It does seem like they'd do fine as a meme-stock company though.
I taught my now 4 year old that those are called dumpsters, so he very reliably says, "Hey Dad! A dumpster" whenever he sees one. The number of people he has loudly roasted while getting out of their dumpster is too high to count. Perhaps my proudest parenting achievement so far.
I just imagine what an incredible success Tesla would have had just making a "boring" Tesla branded competition to the F150. "Just" a model 3 with a standard pickup body.
Americans, for whatever reason, only buy SUVs and trucks. They've left the whole truck market untapped by creating a vehicle only a very small niche could/would want.
I don't understand what product marketing was up to, or if they just completely lacked the spine to stand up to Elon.
Surprise: a car that can only be legally sold and used on mainstream roads in the US makes poor sales, even in the US, after its design was widely ridiculed.
The Model 3 was a masterpiece of design, the Cybertruck is more like Cybercuck.
Outside of certain kinds of construction contractors, I rarely if ever see pickup trucks used for this purpose.
This anecdote might indicate why: We recently had a bunch of work done on our house. The siding crew had a pickup truck, and every morning the very first thing they did was unload the entire contents of the truck into our back yard. The plumbers and electricians would just get the stuff they were actually using and then lock the van.
I struggle with why I should care. A low selling, controversial truck that is the brainchild of an eccentric billionaire is being discontinued. It's a triumph of Tesla marketing that anyone should care.
They have sold 70k Cybertrucks since 2023. Ford has sold more than 10 times that alone of F-series. Toyota sells that many RAV4s every two months.
For anyone that bought one and loves it - I'm not questioning your choice and I hope the vehicle will be well supported. Many popular vehicles that sell better have been discontinued like the entire companies of Geo, Saturn, and AMC. The Chevy Malibu sold twice as many cars per year pre-Covid than total Cybertrucks have been sold, and they were discontinued in 2024.
It's relatively neat that Tesla tried something new but they should consider focusing on operations and not losing further ground to BYD globally.
I wonder if we will see less aggressive and generally hostile car designs in the future, now that public sentiment towards the tech oligarchs seems to have shifted.
Renault is designing cute things again, so that's a good development. So is Citroen, apparently?
The overall positive responses here are kinda...concerning.
This sharp edged, fire hazard which was aimed at a certain group of people who seem to be dangerous themselves is not really something that should be cheered.
And yes, it looked different but there are different looking cars all over the world. They usually serve a purpose though like kei cars in Japan.
Of course if there was an actual board of this public company with actual power the useless CEO would have been fire ten times over. But like in Meta and other Tech companies this will never be able to happen due to 10x voting Class B shares bullshit.
Why shareholders put up with that I will never know
All the clown show at Tesla had to do is clone the F-150. This was one of the easiest product failures to predict in recent memory. Musk can't help himself. Tesla continues to desperately need a Shotwell at the helm.
At present all Tesla has propping it up is bubble dust and one car model (one increasingly dated car model). Somehow after 14-15 years (Model S released in Summer 2012) these people still can't release a real SUV of any sort. The model Y is a grotesque joke of a fake SUV, a mutilated model 3 that doesn't really look like an SUV in any regard. The model Y is an SUV like the Cybertruck is a truck. They might as well have unlimited money to do it, and they can't do it. Same reason they couldn't release the roadster even after all this time. It's a fundamentally broken company because Musk won't get out of the way. Whatever Musk is good at it, it's not running a large scale automotive company.
Ok, I know I will take a lot of flack for this here with all the Enron fanboys but..
On one hand: "Ha ha!"
On the other, oh no, all these yahoos that bought this trash may make their money back if they hold on to this garbage long enough for the rarity to drive up the value as a collectors item.
Very happy to see this incel dumpster disappear. It's a great example of how aesthetics can be so horrible that they become a kind of moral contagion. The cybertruck's metallic exterior is the g4m3r equivalent of Trump's gold foil. Do love that Elon spent half a billion to get BTFO in Texas though. Good riddance. And lol at all the HN Elon fanboys. Guess I shouldn't expect more from this crowd. If there's one thing that MAGA slackjaws and SF tech nerds have in common it's zero taste.
Even if one assumes all tesla trucks.. share of electric trucks in USA is 0.3%.
Tesla cyber truck sales are going down from 38k a year to 20k a year. The Chinese net sales of electric trucks is massively more than Tesla's production if you look at the data that I posted.
After Helene knocked out power in parts of my area for a little over 14 days, I found out that a friend of ours used his cybertruck to power his house through the entire mess. He'd run the house on it for a couple of days, then drive the cybertruck over to a super charger station, recharge, then come home and plug the house back in.
The battery capacity on those things is equivalent to 9 Tesla Powerwall units or something close to it.
They may be ugly, but the emergency prepper in me always wanted one after hearing that story. Before, I always wanted to install powerwalls...but I never considered in an extended event being able to drive my powerwalls somewhere to recharge them.
This seems like an awfully niche case, no? How often does someone lose power at home for days, while also having a nearby and accessible charging station that stays functional the whole time? Most of the disasters I'm aware of people either get their power back in a short enough amount of time that they can use a normal generator for the gap, or things are bad and widespread enough that they aren't driving down the street to recharge their vehicle.
Also very important: the cybertruck is not the only vehicle capable of doing that (the keywords are V2H and V2L, V2H is the more convenient — the car just plugs into the mains and acts as a house battery — while V2L means you have to go and plug your stuff to the car's mains outputs directly)
> Most of the disasters I'm aware of people either get their power back in a short enough amount of time that they can use a normal generator for the gap
TBF an EV car has an absolutely massive battery relative to the electric consumption of a house, unless you're using resistive heating all around. Especially if you ration use.
Here's Alex from Technology Connections testing powering things in his house from his Hyundai Ioniq 5.
https://youtu.be/yO5fJ8z66Z8
I live in an area prone to high winds and we occasionally have pre-planned power shutdowns (I think PSPS is the term).
My Ioniq 5 has been a godsend. No, it can't power the house without dorking around with my electrical panel. But we can run the fridge, dishwasher, a few standing lights and keep phones and computers full charged.
I used a similar setup to Alex's but with the outlet in the rear seat instead of the V2X connector. I will probably by the V2X connector since it supposedly hanldles higher power draw.
I can’t imagine using a dishwasher with limited power?
I barely use mine with unlimited power. Unless I’m hosting dinner for 20.
I was going to make a joke about ludicrous speed, but then remembered that automatic dishwashers for restaurants typically clean dishes in under two minutes.
It’s only me and my partner and we run it every single day. To be fair we both work from home so we generate more dishes than two people that go to work I suppose but I just hate doing them by hand
You don’t have to make excuses, modern dishwashers are really water and power efficient.
A European model uses about 1 kWh for washing 12 place-settings (big plate, small plate, bowl, saucer, glass, mug).
US models approx 2-3 kWh because energy efficiency laws are nowhere near as strict, and they use hot fill of usually electrically heated water.
I think a really in-depth look at how people use dishwashers would be pretty interesting. There are a lot of surprisingly strong opinions about right ways to do it. Of course knowing the right way is also interesting, but how people came to be so convinced that their way was the right way would be even more interesting to me-- I suspect there are a lot of hidden generational and socioeconomic attitudes hidden in there.
Is that the new PlayStation?
TIL about his extra's channel, thanks!
We have a heat pump with SOCP 5, but are still using 30kWh per day now.
That's 2-3 days worth without changing your use pattern, which surely you would do if you expected a long blackout period?
On most modern EVs, that's at least 3 days worth of power if the vehicle is not being driven. Larger vehicles naturally have far larger batteries.
Mmmh no? 90kWh battery packs are not that common. An M3 or MY LR AWD have an 82kWh. Some Mercedes and some Chinese model have a 100+kWh battery but the most common setup is between 60 and 70.
Anyway I agree that in emergency conditions it can go a looong way for a house.
My bmw has 108
Is that 30 kW each hour of the day or 30 kW per day?
30 kWh per day, while a clunky unit, is what most people would understand when talking about home consumption. It’ll be what their utility typically reports, how you’d want to size a battery, etc.
Sort of neither?
It's 30kW for one hour.
(Or 1.25kW for 24 hours, or however you prefer).
[Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt-hour]
It's like you had a faucet with cross section of 2 square inches, and 15 seconds with that faucet wide open would fill a jug. That jug holds 30 squareinches-seconds of water.
You may then use that water over the course of a day. That's 30 sqin-sec per day. That is not 30 square inches for a whole day. It's second per day.
Or watt hour per week or whatever.
Yes, it can be described like 0.00034722 sqin/day, and that corresponds to no physical object and that would be largely useless.
Why not Joules or Liters? Because that's complicated for anything electrical.
Pretty sure GP understands that, their point being you can't just wave away 'per unit time' when talking about it relative to generation, it matters.
"30kW per day" makes no sense. It's like saying "100km/h per day". W is a unit of power, Wh is a unit of energy.
It's unintuitive because a guy named Watt decided "Joule per second" is Watt, so the intuitive units Joule and Joule per second got turned on their head to W times hour and Watt. This is opposite to usual intuition of distance and speed for example, km and km/h. If I redefined the km/h to a "tick", then a km would become "tick times hour".
If you want a "better than nothing" but imperfect analogy, Wh is how much water you have in a bottle, and W is how quickly you can get the water out.
The naming of the unit is posthumous
And yet all utilities of the world decided to use kWh as the thing to measure. Also basically all smart measurement devices settled on this being the default to show. Exactly in the way he used it here, kw per day, kw per week, kw per month, kw per year.
This discussion seems super silly, considering he's just using the measurement that the industry adopted decades ago...
Are y'all just coming out of a time travel device from the 70s or something?
"30kWh per day" isn't waving away anything.
30kW is a rate.
30kWh is a measure of energy, about 100MJ.
30kWh/day is a rate again, 100MJ/day.
It seems clunky, but it's a way energy usage in a house is typically measured.
Wh is a unit of energy. They're saying how much energy they consume per day.
No, their point is wrong either way and there is no way to steel man it without saying the comment is extremely poorly articulated.
30kWh is 1.25kW for 24 hours or 30kW for one hour.
30kW every hour means 720kWh per day. 30kW all day is also 720kWh per day.
The comment is nonsense.
The only way you can steel man it is by saying he isn't concerned about the 1.25kW, he is concerned about the swings, but he said 30kW twice for two different time spans so that can't be it either.
As soon as the Rivian has v2h I will buy
The value of a used 24 KWh battery used in, say, an old EV non-tesla car - $2000 (note this still has plenty of life left). Example: a 2013 Nissan Leaf
The value of the same, repurposed to a "powerwall" - $10k per 10 KWh
The value of it once attached to a "movable powerwall" - :) add a few more zeros
Clearly, I am in the wrong business...
You can get good batteries for a lot cheaper than a power wall. Just like when the Tesla family of companies tried to do home solar - big premium for the name.
Like what?
If you have a string inverter setup, I’m not aware of anything good that is cheaper. If you have micro inverters then sure, but otherwise you have additional hardware cost.
This puzzles me.
When we got solar we asked for quotes, but ‘No Tesla’. The sales rep said ‘We get that a lot’.
Haha, I’m actually in process of installing a home solar setup. That’s exactly what I told the installers too.
I wasn’t interested in hearing any advantages of a Tesla Powerwall, that brand is toxic to me now.
There’s plenty of good alternatives that don’t fund criminals like Tommy Robinson and Russell Brand.
What did you go with?
We have Sigenergy. Are they better than Teslas? Unsure, but at least I have no idea what the owner(s) think.
Nothing is installed yet but I think the plan is to go with Sunsynk. It's still being debated though.
I want a system that doesn't need to be connected to the cloud.
I knew a guy with a Tesla solar system and his advice was also “no Tesla”
Batteries are cheap, an unsafe installation burning your house down, extremely expensive.
Best practice would be to build a separate structure and physically separate the battery from your house.
> This seems like an awfully niche case, no?
Natural disasters are often niche cases, and often life-or-death as well.
If you're a hearing this story and only thinking about it in the way you are, then you're just not being very imaginative. It's a mobile power plant. You can power anything, not just a house. Imagine anything you'd want to use a generator for, but replace it with the EV batteries. I'm trying to guide away from being specific to cybertruck, as maybe the lack of imagination also limits the thoughts here too. In fact, the Ford F150 Lightning was advertised as the truck being a battery power source as a feature. Guys using it on a job site to power tools, powering the house, and several other concepts were shown in the video.
Just really confused on how "smart readers" can get so scoped in to see a single point rather than the wider view. Forest through the trees something something
Most people (like me) don't have generators. But when I hear "oh, BTW this car can be a used as a generator for 48-72 hours in a power outage", that's a nice little selling point that might put me over the edge if i'm otherwise considering the car. No, this doesn't solve for Hurricane Katrina. But it does solve for a nor'easter.
My car is basically one big gas-powered generator that has the benefit of also not requiring a functional power station to refill itself.
It has other downsides, obviously. But the notion of "emergency power for your house" isn't really anything special.
It probably does though, unless you have stockpiled gas. If the power is down to the gas station, the pumps don't work.
My experience with power outages (after big summer storms, not a hurricane thank goodness) has been that my neighborhood is impacted, but that places nearby have power. They tend to restore commercial first, so the supercharger near me is up and running before my house.
> If the power is down to the gas station, the pumps don't work.
In places where long power outages are common (hurricane areas), many gas stations have their own generators (they also have a convenient source of fuel to run them!)
If the power is down to the charging station the chargers don't work, this is just as likely as the power being down at the gas station
Let me know when you figure out how to refill your gas car from solar panels.
I know you're being snarky, but the chemical process for that exists! It's called the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. You take air, CO2 specifically, and then run the process, which needs electricity, possibly from solar panels, and get diesel/gasoline/jet fuel out the other end! Isn't science amazing?
There are practical issues with it, but it's possible. The question is EROI or Energy Return on Investment. Do you get more energy from it than it took to make it, which unfortunately is not there yet. Shrinking it down to fit into your backyard is an exercise left for the reader.
Hyperspace Pirate tried this at home, and it's horribly inefficient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKbjT8AoJw
Fischer-Tropsch uses CO, not CO2. You also need hydrogen. The input is not air but other hydrocarbons. Coal being the most common.
it is more than possible - this is exactly what casey handmer and his startup terraform industries is doing in a pilot plant in the desert: https://blog.terraformindustries.com/2026/10/21/terraform-20...
If you've got solar panels sufficent to charge a cybertruck then you don't need the cybertruck to power your home. Regular battery systems will work
Charging an EV from regular household solar panels would take days....
And that's assuming they are sunny days.
I think your math is off some how. I have a Model 3 and two Leafs and we charge them from our 39 400 Watt panels without trouble. They are always ready to go fully charged unless one of the boys has been doing more than normal of driving to the beach with a girlfriend and then borrowing the Model 3 for a concert, or whatever fun involves using all the stored energy at the same time (e.g. not commutes to school or work).
My 12 kw solar system charges my 32kwh battery in a few hours on sunny days. But to be fair, your system is even larger, and both of our solar systems are larger than average for home solar. A 5 kw system would indeed take days to charge a typical ev battery from zero to full.
It takes about a 6-8 hours to charge my Leaf on a small solar install.
But yes, it needs to be sunny if that’s going to be pure solar.
I realize the person you're replying to wasn't specific and said just "EV" but a leaf and a cybertruck are pretty much the polar ends of a spectrum.
Ok but the problem with this argument is that you could come up with a hypothetical EV that can store enough energy to last a year and then take a year to charge.
And yet nothing prevents you from driving daily.
What matters is how much range you drive and recharge, not how big your battery is.
There are many hours in a day and EVs are pretty efficient. You might struggle if your goal is to drive 200km per day but if all you want is to drive to work or go shopping, you'll be fine.
What? My BIL’s installation is small, roughly 8kWp, on sunny days he easily gets 40-50kWh, if not more.
The Cybertruck has a 123kW battery, so charging it would take days, assuming they are sunny days.
because solar panels only exist on houses?
Because EVs are only powered by solar?
Who said they were?
Let me know when you invent solar panels that aren’t vulnerable to damaging winds.
Where I live solar panels have been smashed by hail ice balls, 3 inches diameter.
Probably when they invent a genset that can sustain its surrounding structure being immolated in a wildfire?
I'm 100% off grid on solar in the middle of nowhere. My panels could burn up, get hit by hail, get searched by law enforcement, flooded out, eaten by mice, stolen by miscreants, abducted by aliens or buried in snow. And of course in the event of a volcano they are probably not gonna function well.
So they are of course totally unworkable in events when the power grid is down.
But I like using them and they've been reliable so far...
> unless you have stockpiled gas
And are regularly rotating that stockpile, because gasoline has a shelf life measured in months
edit: Apparently this leans more technically-true factoid than fact, thank you replies
You're not wrong but this is commonly exaggerated: half a year with a stabilizer is entirely doable under reasonable conditions.
Be sure and use a clear liquid stabilizer! The one I used had red dye in it and it gummed up the carburetor. Also, I never use any ethanol fuel in my generator.
Amuses me hear this - I ran a moped from a large tank of multi-year old petrol, and it got by fine. But maybe a modern car might be more picky?
Last year, I let a fairly new portable generator with low hours on sit with gas in it for 6 months and it would not fire up. It wouldn't even sputter.
That was surprising to me because it was working quite well when parked, and I'm used to doing things like leaving lawnmowers outside continuously (including over the winter) without much trouble, but that's what happened anyway.
I drained the old fuel out and replaced with fresh, and it fired up on the first subsequent half-assed pull of the starter rope.
(Which reminds me: It's been six months again already. Time to see if it still works.)
Fuel stabilizer is cheap insurance for anything that overwinters with fuel in it -- motorcycles, boat engines, etc.
You have to put in in the tank and run it for a bit to make sure that the carbs don't have untreated fuel inside.
A fairly new snowblower of mine had gas left in it over the summer. Before the first snowfall of the following winter it would not start. A dissection of the carburetor revealed numerous places where small passages were completely filled with a sticky gummy substance that had to be mechanically removed. After cleaning and reassembly, it fired right up with fresh gas. Maybe the old gas would have worked just fine once it could flow. Clearly having the gas sit in there had adverse effects.
The carb on this generator has a drain for the bowl. It should've been dry in there when parked. I don't know what the insides looked like because replacing the gas was easy and it worked, so I stopped troubleshooting at that point. :)
I just did this as well. Fired up my moped on 2 year old stabilized gas. Runs fine.
We use the (inboard) engine so rarely on my sailboat I'm sure we've gone 2 years on a tank without issue before.
HN is full of maintenance purists, and I do know I should do better, but... A Corolla will work fine after sitting for a year or so and it’s once-or-twice-per-decade oil change seems to work ok.
Keep in mind that different gas "engines" have different type fuel systems. Your Corolla has a high pressure fuel pump, which forces the fuel to pressurize the injectors. The fuel is ignited by a high voltage spark system. Small engines are a "pick up" type system, which can't tolerate almost any resistance. I run my portable generator for a half hour every other month. Except for using some red dye stabilizer (which gummed up the carb), I've never had a failed start. I no longer use any stabilizer in my fuel.
Unless you are trying to race your car at the drag strip with charged air and hit your best times, that isn't true at all and I don't know why people keep saying it. You think everybody empties their lawn mowers, snow blowers, snowmobiles, generators, etc. every year of gas or before trying to start it up again the next year? No way.
Simpler gas equipment like mowers and generators don't have enough compression to really care about anything but ancient gas, and if you run any vehicle that is multi-fuel capable it can detect and adjust compression based on a fuel's capabilities.
Ive been repairing and fixing junkers of cars, mowers, ATVs, generators, and more for 30 years and not once has bad gas stopped something from running. I only remove it if it was clearly having water raining into the tank. In every other case where I couldn't start something after sitting around for 5+ years, it was from the gas gumming up in the carb or the shitty diaphragm pump, which generally means there is little to no gas left to start with.
I wouldn't even suspect gas of ever being bad unless it was atleast a few years old. If the tank was open it could have evaporated, if the tank was closed it probably ain't great gas but I bet it would still run in anything but a high compression application.
> detect and adjust compression based on a fuel's capabilities.
Spark, not compression.
The spark timing determines how much compression is in the cylinder at the moment the fuel/air mixture is ignited. So, while it's technically true that it's the spark timing that's being adjusted, the thing that is being controlled for is the compression.
The Ford F150 Powerboost has an optional 7.2 kVA inverter, which I am not sure if there are any other vehicles that can do the same off a gas tank.
I am guessing that one of the use cases is a support unit to charge an EV just enough to get it to a charging station.
Ford has had options like this forever and it's usually targeted at farmers and ranchers, I think the first I've found was like a 77 or 78 f250 'rancher' that had a generator option on the main belt off the motor. The ads show a guy cutting boards with a skill saw to mend a fence or something.
edit: I think these also had a ford branded chainsaw over the wheel well on the other side of the engine bay.
Had to look this up, not great pics but very cool:
"The generator was called the Electric Power Pak. From 1969 to 1972, Ford offered a 2,500-watt underhood generator, mostly on the Contractor’s Special, though it could be special ordered on other trucks. It also wasn’t driven off the engine’s belt. It was a separate Onan generator with its own 5.5 hp air-cooled single-cylinder engine, feeding an outlet in the bed. It sat on the driver’s side splash pan. The package the commenter calls a “Rancher” is likely the Farm & Ranch Special, which is one of the trucks that came with it.
The chainsaw was real. Ford sold Ford-blue chainsaws from 1970 to about 1976. They were rebadged Ohlsson & Rice saws: the Eagle I/II and the smaller Hawk. A mount was also sold that held the saw on the F-250’s driver’s side inner fender"
https://www.fordification.com/tech/images/onan_brochure-phot... https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5601f99be4b059... https://www.fordification.com/tech/onan.htm
Nice find. It's been a long time since I've seen these so I did get some details wrong =/
I was actually quite impressed by how well you described a 50+ year old product and ad, a commendable recollection in my view
I have one, and I have powered my house with it on a few occasions. I made the purchase after a friend of mine ran his for four days straight. I always fill up the tank if there are storms coming.
When I was shopping in 2025, this was the only truck with that kind of output.
I almost purchased that truck, but I needed a higher cargo capacity for my travel trailer, and the added batteries reduced it by 250lbs or so. The ability to plug a travel trailer directly into the truck and run it is really cool.
2024 and later Toyota Tacomas (and 4Runners and Landcriusers, I think) with the hybrid iForce Max power train have a 120V 2400W outlet. It will run briefly from the traction battery before starting the engine to recharge.
Solar panels can refill it during the day, and the car can keep your fridge and heat pump running through the night.
Can you actually run home appliances from a regular ICE car? My furnace blower uses ~1800 watts when it kicks in.
> Can you actually run home appliances from a regular ICE car?
You would need to add an accessory generator (which probably won't fit under the hood) and possibly upgrade the cooling system.
Mine, too. It's pretty great as a car. Gas goes in one hole, exhaust comes out of another, and the wheels go 'round and round. It's awesome.
As an electrical generator, it's really not very good. The alternator is rated at 120 Amps (bigger than many, smaller than others).
At 13.8v, that's only 1,656 Watts -- on a good day, with the engine wound up. But the engine won't be wound up. It will instead be idling. The output will be less than 1656 Watts.
It burns right around 0.6 gallons of gasoline per hour (ie 22kW!) while idling and doing ~nothing else. It holds 21 gallons of gas.
So the unachievable best-case of idling-and-doing-no-real-work means that if it starts with a full tank of fuel, it will run out in 35 hours.
And in the real world, it will be doing work since that's the whole point of the exercise. It will therefore use somewhat more than its do-nothing 0.6 gallons per hour idle consumption.
We can ignore the longevity issues of treating a gas-fired vehicle as a stationary generator (these are expensive parts that are getting abnormally heat-soaked) because this is a temporary solution to a temporary problem, but as a practical matter: I'll still need to fill it up with gas, however I do that[1], about every day.
And, sure: That can be a way to solve some problems. With a decent inverter stashed out of the weather, connected with appropriately-big cables, I can probably use it to run the gas-fired furnace, the fridge and freezer, some lights, and some digital entertainment. Maybe it can't run all of that at the same time, but I'm smart and I'll manage.
The gas-fired car probably is useful, as long as I can drive somewhere and fill it back up.
---
Or: I could just plug stuff into an appropriate EV. It can sit there quietly being the giant battery that it is, and I can drive it out every couple/three days, or maybe just once per week as some suggest, to fill it back up.
It won't have an idle baseload of anywhere near the equivalent of 0.6 gallons of gasoline and it will therefore respond well to intermittent, dynamic loads like heat and refrigeration.
The EV is probably more-useful, as long as I can drive somewhere and charge it back up.
---
[1]: Sure, sure. I can carry a large quantity of gasoline to make the trips more-worthwhile. I can even store some locally (it's a pain to keep it fresh, but do-able).
If I were into that kind of prepping then what would be my practical limit? An extra 40 gallons, for ~60 overall? Great! Now I can run the car/house combo for 3 days before heading back out, and the EV still probably wins on this metric.
Genuinely curious what you mean by this.
First, 'nearby' can be a 1 hr drive and still be worth it to commute every few days. Second, tornadoes, storms, and floods have exactly that pattern where damage can be block by block.
But it is still cheaper to stockpile some generators and gas than stockpile a cybertruck. If there's an EV charging station up within a 1 hr drive, gas stations are also going to be up.
Even if you can’t easily recharge, it’s a great way to power your home for a few days. It’s arguably a very cost-efficient home backup solution, assuming you were already in the market for an EV.
A Cybertruck has nearly 10x the battery capacity of a single Powerwall, and to buy that much Powerwall capacity would cost at least as much as a Cybertruck. Even a Tesla Model 3 (which now supports home backup) is over 5x Powerwalls.
You still have to pay to install home backup support on your home’s breaker (at least $10k), but you don’t need anywhere near the amount of very expensive supplemental home batteries.
Also, even an EV with a 120V outlet and no home backup support could be very useful for recharging a portable battery bank.
> You still have to pay to install home backup support on your home’s breaker (at least $10k),
$10,000 to install a socket, a breaker, and a transfer switch?
Surely not.
We priced this out when we bought our Ford F150 generator on wheels. It was maybe 3k including parts and labor. We opted to go without the fancy socket and breaker, and it cost us about 600 USD.
The cheaper version even, which may be what you are talking about, is literally just a piece of plastic or metal called an interlock on the breaker box that prevents the main from being on while the generator inlet is supplying power (backfeeding the line). Then all you need to do is install the inlet on top of that which when I did this a few years ago was around $1,000 USD all in parts and labor.
Electricians like their transfer switches because they are right sized and everything, e.g. they are more foolproof for the end user to operate, but the interlock approach actually gives you more control because every breaker is allowed (a transfer switch will only expose some small subset of all your breakers usually), you just have to manage the power supply yourself.
Sorry, that’s for a full Tesla Powerwall (which includes its own 13.5 kWh battery) which is required to use the recently-announced Model 3 and Y home backup feature. The Cybertruck only needs the gateway and wall connector, which is still $2k plus labor.
Sadly in CA…
Some one mentioned something similar about their Ford Lightning in a previous thread. If a whole truck with batteries cost less than the same bare batteries then people buying powerwalls are getting absolutely screwed.
I’m not that familiar with the Powerwall ecosystem, but the equipment and installation that connects to your breaker is non-trivial. But I’ve seen people who add bulk OEM batteries to other home backup systems and those are fairly cheap.
Regardless, the thing that’s really great for cost effectiveness is that the same large battery can be used everyday for driving and also used rarely for emergency home backup systems.
Its still a margin issue. The Powerwallproducer wants their 20% margin, the car company might want there 20% too, but from the whole truck.
The battery installer probably chargers a 100% markup.
10% to pay for their costs - materials and labour
90% to pay for their new Cybertruck financing
You want at least one actual PowerWall so that your house doesn't go down when you take your truck on an errand. But yeah, if you're buying 4+ PowerWalls you're probably better off getting an EV with V2H capabilities instead.
More like the people buying electric trucks got incredibly good deals, which is why the trucks are all going out of production.
You're looking backwards in time. Look forwards and it makes more sense.
With climate change causing more extreme weather events and an aging and increasingly more and more difficult to update power grid facing unprecedented strains, I think power disruptions like this are more likely than less. So it makes sense when you look forward rather than backwards in time.
This is exactly what I do. My cabin is in a rural area that gets a lot of power outages, and it also happens to be < 10 min away from a supercharger. When I was getting quotes for a home battery backup system, every other option was astronomically more expensive than the cybertruck. I don’t know why adding wheels to the battery pack makes it a lot less expensive but I’m not complaining. It’s good to have an extra vehicle I can use in the event of an emergency as well.
This is one of those things that happens in rural areas, "the city" (which is not actually a city in any sense but the legal one) gets power on in a day or so but your neighborhood 10 miles away doesn't get power for another week because the population density is something like 50/sq mile at most. And that's just for the people in actual neighborhoods, if you're on a farm or something where the nearest neighbor is a mile down the highway I don't even know how long it takes them to fix your power lines.
I grew up in the country, just not far from a town of 2000, but had friends who were more remote, and my power is, well not exactly less reliable now that I’m in the city, but not necessarily better. They would have power to my house or my friends house back pretty quick. Longest I remember was maybe 4 hours. We’ve had 36 hour outages in the city (more than half a million people). I do think we had more outages in the country, but never very long. Structure of the distribution network? Ease of accessing the lines?
>Structure of the distribution network? Ease of accessing the lines?
Ice storms/blizzards in the upper midwest can last days and make roads impassible to the point where they can't/don't fix the very many downed lines until the storm passes enough that they don't have to deprioritize rural roads and outages.
It's just not safe/possible to fix a line downed by ice when it's -30 out in blizzard conditions even if the trucks could navigate the roads.
This turns into the occasional several day outage for some folks.
I've also lived in parts of cities that essentially were impossible to have power failures absent very local equipment failures (like the power equipment attaching my building to the grid failing once) because the lines were underground and there was a power plant very close by.
It depends on a lot of things and lots of people assume everywhere else is just like where they are.
Power outages at least where the live are a fairly common occurrence (overhead local power lines get taken out by trees if there is a big blow), power is usually restored in 1-48hrs. A lot of people have backups (generators or batteries) but those are fairly expensive when you amortize them against cost / hour of outage. Having that backup up power available at no incremental cost is pretty nice to have.
During a “power cut” there is usually reduced capacity on the grid, not zero capacity. They typically cut power to homes while keeping power on for business. The homes get power on a rolling blackout, so they have power for a few hours per day.
I expect that the charging station will be in an industrial park with an industrial power supply.
The opposite usually happens. Homes are protected by cutting power to industrial customers who bulk purchase power at a discounted rate.
The option to cut power are negotiated into the service contracts.
For instance an aluminum smelter may need a certain amount of notice to shut down their machinery, so they may negotiate an hour of notice or whatever they need. The power company may have to briefly load shed residential while still in the notice period, but then they take the smelter offline and restore service.
I find it highly likely that high consumption electric car fast charging site would negotiate to be the first in line to have their power cut given they don't have any equipment that could be damaged and they'd be most interested in discounted power.
Genuinely surprised that you’re right.
I was remembering how critical infrastructure stays on. Most critical infrastructure is commercial.
However, a business park or an office block gets cut off with the homes.
The whole point of prepping is to prepare for the unlikely events though.
If you can choose between a truck that can’t power your house and a truck that can, prepper mentality is to choose the one that can.
With unlimited money, sure, but your typical prepper would be able to fund a decent portable gas generator and jerry cans (or even a natural gas line) without a need for financing.
Never understood that line of reasoning. In a really bad situation, you just won't have any fuel. And solar is the way to go.
Why does the prepper assume there will be electricity to charge his car?
In case of living somewhere sunny, because he has solar installed?
If you are using solar why need the cybertruck at all?
Because when you produce more energy than you need, you need to store it somewhere and if the cost is roughly equivalent for that place to be mobile vs a static construction, choosing the mobile one is superior.
Standard grid-tie systems shut themselves off during a grid outage due to anti-islanding safety requirements.
If you want your solar panels to be operational during an outage, the typical install for this is a system that already includes batteries.
There are specialized options that exist with islanding features, but if you didn't install your solar system specifically for this you probably don't have it.
But the cost isn't equivalent at all???
Is this thread being astroturfed? This defence for the Cybertruck ITT is one of the least rational threads I've seen on HN in the past few years and if the CT was actually valuable tech it wouldn't be one of the worst selling vehicles of all time.
Are you maybe a bit overreacting? The question of emergency power is a rational one and no one here said they thinj a cybertruck is awesome because of it. Just that this is a selling point.
I am certainly overreacting. I was just dumbfounded by the question I was responding too. If the concern is emergency power there are so many better alternatives than a cybertruck. If the concern is storing an abundance of solar power there are much better alternatives than a cybertruck. I don't want to come onto HN and be marketed products; I come to HN for tech news and to see cool software that people build, not to be marketed a cybertruck.
> The question of emergency power is a rational one
And the additional value of Cybertruck in this question is about $1000 - $1500. $1k of additional value for $60k purchase is still a selling point, but marginally small selling point.
There are a whole bunch of "Prepping" scenarios to prepare for.
Because the "prepper" never had to deal with an actual disaster.
You can stockpile diesel for a generator (unlike electrons). That's what actual prepping looks like.
Take it from a Ukrainian.
There was a great write up by a Bosnian survivor about prepping vs reality and the top concerns were fuel, cooking oil, and paper goods. Water didn’t even make the list.
Sure, in Bosnia where it rains regularly. In drier climates, different story.
Diesel can't be stored forever. Maybe a few years with stabilizer. So you need to remember to rotate it out (and have some use for the fuel you're rotating out).
Much easier to just buy some solar panels to recharge the electric truck.
A prepper will already be rotating out food and water anyway. Solar is still a good idea, but so is having fuel powered generators. Might not be too much sunshine in situations like a nuclear winter or geoengineering gone wrong.
>Diesel can't be stored forever. Maybe a few years with stabilizer. So you need to remember to rotate it out (and have some use for the fuel you're rotating out). Much easier to just buy some solar panels to recharge the electric truck.
Much easier to use diesel in your diesel-powered vehicle.
And then you have much, much energy in your stockpile.
Diesel just lengthens the storage time. You still have to go somewhere to get it when your onsite tank runs dry. For the electric side you could also have a bunch of solar panels. Lots of choices.
And if the needle is so far towards apocalypse, then the horse beats your diesel. Repairs itself, refuels itself, and replaces itself.
The ultimate preppers just become Amish.
If it works it's not stupid. Or something.
> replaces itself At least two horses then.
That's fun till you run out. The sun isn't going to replace your daily use.
The supercharger stations will obviously keep working during the apocalypse.
If you can choose between a truck that becomes a dead weight when the nearby power plant comes offline, and a truck that won't, the prepper mentality is to choose the latter.
Take it from a Ukrainian.
PS: my dual-fuel gasoline/LPG Renault Twingo in Poland will outrun any Cybertruck on the continent.
And, unlike electricity, you can stockpile gasoline.
You can't stockpile gasoline for a long time without stabilizer.
Source: I've mucked up multiple small engines with bad stored gas.
sure, you can get propane or diesel setups that keep somewhere between a long time and indefinably.
You can't store diesel forever, either.
Propane, sure, but now you're talking about something fairly exotic, at least in terms of vehicles you can buy "off the shelf."
In any case, you can't produce propane yourself. You can "produce" electrons with a solar panel.
Edit: My bias is toward North America, but I know of only one model of "normal person car" (city buses don't count) produced in the last 50 years that you could just walk into a dealership and purchase new: The Honda Civic NX. And that was sold for only a few years and only available in California.
I do agree with you on solar for moving off grid. I'm working to convert my full farm and most farm rigs to battery over time because "You can't be your own refinery, but you can be your own power plant."
But for conversations sake, if we're talking about diesel trucks, and specifically an old mechanical diesel like a 7.3 ford or a 12 valve cummins, and we're talking about stored diesel, ideally a class D died diesel with a high sulfer content, then you'll get considerably more lifetime out of it than the recommended 18-24 months.
Additionally, you can burn about anything, old motor oil, fry oil, diesel with algee in it if you treat it and change your filters. A good, mechanical, not very picky diesel will burn fuel that is 20+ years old. Not forever, and you'll go through some filters and maybe injectors. By the time you get to fuel sources that can't be burned in a machine like that, or you've burned it up past your parts and ability to repair. you'll probably have a lot of other problems.
If we're talking generators, you can get off the shelf propane generators and propane stores well.
>You can't stockpile gasoline for a long time without stabilizer.
If you have a vehicle that runs on gasoline, you don't have to store gasoline for a long time to have a stockpile.
The cost of a few empty canisters is by far smaller than the cost of solar batteries, and putting gas into a vehicle in case of an emergency within a span of seconds rather than hours is a huge asset.
Not to mention: not everyone has space for solar. City dwellers are particularly constrained (as in: people who live in apartment complexes).
I wouldn’t feel terribly comfortable storing gas cans in an apartment.
People who live in apartment complexes can have storage spaces that are appropriate for a gas can (basement, shed, etc).
Finding space for a solar battery installation is a bit harder.
Not to mention: your Cybertruck isn't going to power your 7th floor apartment. You can probably figure out why.
God how I wish I had a dual fuel vehicle. In my fever dream my natural gas service entrance would double as a gas station and I could just gas up my car in a few minutes at home with a compressor.
Yeah but the Chinese minerals and the exotic infrastructure needed to manufacture cans and hoses...
In about 25 years, I've twice been out twice for multiple days and one of those was in summer which was a nuisance rather than a potential really serious problem. (Worst case, I buy ice for coolers and maybe need to toss some food.) But I live just off a (major) country road so I'm probably pretty high on the power restoration schedule.
That sort of thing happens all the time. All it takes is, say, a big fallen tree in the wrong spot. Its entirely possible for just your road to be SOL for days, if the local utility is otherwise completely swamped by bigger issues from whatever disaster is going on.
In places like Florida its absolutely something that would not be considered niche.
Greetings from Northern California! Multi-day power outages are not at all uncommon (though I've never seen 14 days). We had one about a month ago. Most people just have generators, but if you wanted to use a Cybertruck instead, the nearest superchargers are one hour away and do not go offline when we lose power.
I suspect an hour's drive is getting close to the point where the supercharger solution gets frustratingly annoying. You have to budget 1/3 of your energy just to the round trip, which will take you at least 4 hours for a complete fill, and may only get you 2 days of power.
But it's not bad to ride out the first couple of days if you've got 120kWh just sitting in your garage.
few times a decade.
Not niche at all. Loss of power for days is common in areas of strong storms with above ground power lines. States frequented by hurricanes and strong storms can experience days to weeks without power.
Ford has also marketed their hybrid F150 as being able to power home appliances for several years.
Also you can get that charging station fitted to your house aka solar panels. I've been "off grid" I.e. no import for weeks
We've got the batteries attached to our house instead of our car, but I have to admit that having it in my car instead of paying to have more attached to my house (we want more) is a really, really tempting option.
I live off grid in Sweden all year round with solar and an EV as battery to power everything except heating which I do with wood from my own property.
I'd have animals too but society is still stable enough to provide me with food.
Living in Ukraine, I can tell you it's not niche here. Most homeowners without power walls already consider buying an EV because you also get to drive it to an area that has electricity at the time.
If you're already committed to owning a bigass $100K electric truck this is an inarguably awesome side benefit. It's a truck, so... you have a few hundred miles of range. Slightly better than "down the street."
But for the other 99.99% of humanity, there are certainly more cost-effective ways. A portable power station and solar panels are probably the better move unless you have some really massive power needs.
(Admittedly, a nuclear winter reduces the effectiveness of those solar panels somewhat)
> But for the other 99.99% of humanity, there are certainly more cost-effective ways.
Are you telling us that you are not planning to buy Tesla Roadster? But what about the situation when there will be huge snow storm and humongous tree will fall across the road, and you will be like really hungry and you could just to fly over it and not starve to death?
Actually, if my car worked as a whole-house UPS and base smart battery (charging at night when power is cheap, drawing during day when it's expensive), that's a pretty nice value-add for a vehicle purchase.
Doesn't make sense for what they are charging for it. But still!
Preppers are just about as niche as you can get; they're still a valid customer prototype! I'm sure more than a few solar home owners chose it as a PowerWall.
At 6000lbs+ it's a section 179 write off; if you combine that with some of the previous incentives the car was not that expensive to the right population.
> This seems like an awfully niche case, no?
Not really. Some areas in California have multiple PSPS outages during fire season. Many people have gotten gas generators or powerwalls to deal with it, but using your EV would be ideal.
Why would that be ideal? I would be worried constantly about if I'm trading electricity in my house for the ability to go somewhere in an emergency. If it's such a real concern you even think about it when buying a car you should have a dedicated device.
Generators have solved this problem. My family used to lose electricity anytime there was a semi serious snow storm. We got a gasoline generator after the second time and it was always sufficient. We never needed to siphon gas from the car either. We later transitioned to a natural gas generator. The lines are all underground and tie into the existing system for the stove and dryer. No car involved.
First thing I thought of was if I had a gasoline generator, I'd probably invest the $5 or so into a hand siphon. You can even keep it running as you go to refill up your vehicle!
Because it's clean (no carbon monoxide dangers, no fuel storage concerns, no oil changes) and quiet (can sleep).
All generators are supposed to be operated outside, so there should never be a concern about carbon monoxide.
If you are concerned about that, you get solar panels and a battery. You still do not have to worry about losing your means of transportation.
Yeah... even powerwalls and equivalent don't seem to be a good just-in-case solution. A gas generator costs 5% for the same capacity, and you can just go get some extra gas when the storm comes. I'm all for electrification, but after doing the math, it doesn't work for this particular corner case.
I think a powerwall or similar only makes sense with solar, but an EV can be a nice emergency supply for little extra cost as long as you don’t need it often.
Other commenters are pointing out places where it isn’t that niche, but I just want to call out that there’s a whole cottage industry for preppers that would eat this up. I would consider a 30-pound bucket full of shelf-stable Mac and cheese “pretty niche,” but it flew off the shelves at Costco.
I'm not sure it is. I've considered getting home batteries for power outages (due to fires), and frankly given the install cost, using a car is compelling. Not only do they have enormous batteries (a model 3 has a 57.5 kwh battery and can be acquired for 20k), but they can be driven to recharge every few days if need be.
Where I'm located, in most cases when there is an outage, neighboring areas do have power.
Specifically for my model 3, I've been considering tapping into the HV system manually to keep my Ecoflow battery topped up, but I wish there was a way to directly connect it.
>This seems like an awfully niche case, no?
No. It's like a generator except way more power and mobile. Rechargable via solar. So basically just a much better generator.
Also an american only case. But anyway trucks are not popular elsewhere, little sense to buy it
Well, with climate change and weather getting more extreme, it might happen more often...
pretty standard in honolulu actually. i lose power for 1-3 days on the regular, have to drive to town to do anything
I've got a friend who does it simply to fuck PG&E and avoid an electric bill. He has workplace charging, a Cybertruck, and a powerwall + Tesla solar setup at home. He drives his truck to work, fills up on electricity, drives it home at the end of the day, and uses it to power his house. Repeat the next day. The Cybertruck was cheaper than the 13 PowerWalls or whatever that's the equivalent battery capacity.
PG&E is still getting paid, he's just stealing from his employer to do it instead of paying directly
Technically not stealing, it's a legal workplace benefit. Possibly abuses the spirit of the policy and may get the policy changed if enough people do it, but he's only doing what he's entitled to.
And there's actually a good chance that PG&E is not being paid: most of the big tech companies have large solar installations covering the parking lot which power all the EV chargers, so they cut PG&E out of it entirely and produce their own power.
Which is why PG&E started charging for grid connections. They still get their dollar at the end of the day unless you island.
Yes, but PG&E is getting paid much less.
PG&E has special tariffs for meters that are used only for powering commercial EV chargers ("BEV1" and "BEV2"). They're about half of what a residential consumer would pay for an EV-only meter (the "EV-B" tariff).
Actually no, and in fact almost all EVs are capable of powering a house for quite a while. It would be excellent if this was not just a Cybertruck-exclusive feature since here in the bay area we have shitty infrastructure too and power outages happen several times per winter.
I saw it happen during Katrina. Neighborhoods within an easy drive of each other where one had power, and the other not. Not to mention the fact that vehicle charging stations may well be prioritized to restore power.
It’s niche just because natural disasters are thankfully relatively rare, but I still think having good contingencies is worth it.
Fuck being seen in a cybertruck though.
> Not to mention the fact that vehicle charging stations may well be prioritized to restore power
Electric vehicles won't, ever, be prioritized over bringing up residential, commercial and emergency services. The fact that even on a super charger it's 20+ minutes to charge a Cybertruck means the two or three at the local gas station will just end up with 12+ hour lines. Even now generators are fueled before private vehicles.
Bringing up power after disasters is super dangerous as is. A lot of systems that hadn't been turned off in years do a cold start, and sparks fly. It's why the power company and fire departments coordinate very very closely on grid work.
You know someone's going to try and bypass any safeties and circuit breakers and end up taking down their house when they try to restore power after a flood or something. People already regularly die from running their generator in the garage and most of these aren't wired directly into house mains.
Can you find one supercharger with only three plugs?
My silicon valley neighborhood lost power for two days in 2025 starting on Christmas day.
In what universe is backup power a niche use case?
Ice storms in the Midwest can knock power out for several days in rural areas. Urban areas usually get brought back online sooner than the rural areas. A few years ago a bad one knocked out power at a friend’s house for three weeks.
Niche until it’s life/death unfortunately.
Not uncommon in parts of California where certain legs of the grid are shut down for high wind events. If you live in Pacifica, you might have your power out for 3 to 5 days, but there will be reliable power in San Francisco 20 minutes away.
An awful lot Elon’s products seem uniquely capable in extreme niche cases primarily caused by America‘s horrendous track record of maintaining, upgrading, and filling in traditional infrastructure.
Two observations with complaining about America's infrastructure:
1. America is huge. Comparing it to places in Europe is like comparing it to New Hampshire.
2. American has imported tons of people who are incapable of sustaining a high standard of living on their own. It only takes a few percent shift in GDP/person to change how much infrastructure you can build and maintain unless you are truly willing to let all the folks with less than a high school education and no special job skills live in favelas.
I really should not engage with the bigotry you demonstrated in your point two, but I will still offer you a rebuttal.
Iceland (part of Europe) is the size of Florida with 2/3 the population of Wyoming. 20% of Iceland’s population are 1st generation immigrants. Neither of those facts prevents Iceland from filling in, upgrading, and maintaining their infrastructure. The two week power blackout which GP’s friend experienced is unheard of in Iceland. And every population center, no matter how remote and low population (we are talking fewer then 100) still gets broadband internet via traditional infrastructure.
I also want to note that I did not compare America with Europe, you did that. And it is a determent to your argument (as if your racism didn’t do that already).
Acknowledging the existence of people without educations is not bigotry. For example, can you explain why remote tribes in the amazon rainforest don't all have space programs? I think it's because the lack the societal and individual development to have the productive capacity to do such a thing. Why do you think they don't? It's economic reality that if there is only a limited number of people who can do a thing, the amount of that thing is going to be limited. And when you abstract that through culture and modern life, the way you say that is GDP per capita.
You know that Helene was a category 4 hurricane that crossed six states, affected tens of millions of people and cause $78 billion dollars in damage. It was a major event like nothing that has ever happened in Iceland. That level of event in Iceland would remove it as a going concern.
To respond to your add, yes I brought up Europe because outside of Europe there are like 3 countries that even have comparable infrastructure to the US. If you say "America has a terrible track record with infrastructure." Then the implication is that there is somewhere that does better. And my argument is that selectively you can probably find places but nothing as large as the US or with as many people who can't contribute to it's maintenance. (Did you know that in the US more than 50% of households are not net tax payers? All of the American infrastructure burden is carried by less than half of the households.) Your example of Iceland has 13000 KM of roads, of which 7,300 KM are paved. How is that some comparison?
> Acknowledging the existence of people without educations is not bigotry.
It is. Education has been an excuse for discrimination for a long time. When you describe a whole demographic as being uneducated you are applying exactly the kind of rhetoric which white Rhodesians used to excuse their discrimination[1].
> You know that Helene was a category 4 hurricane that crossed six states.
A Volcano erupted in the town of Grindavík, the main line which connected the town to it’s power plant, went under lava. The town was out of power for a maximum of 7 days.[2]
But in any case, 2 week long blackouts are extremely common in the USA regardless of the severity of the natural disaster. When I first moved to the Seattle area in 2016 a common snow storm caused a blackout which lasted for 2 weeks in some areas outside of Seattle. The reason for the length of the blackouts in the USA is simply due to the quality and maintenance of the infrastructure and any lack of action plans to fix them when they break.
1: https://youtu.be/SLmD23UpLOo?si=hnyOlxPqDmWwQfRp&t=1299
2: https://www.ruv.is/frettir/innlent/2024-06-05-koma-rafmagni-...
> It is. Education has been an excuse for discrimination for a long time. When you describe a whole demographic as being uneducated you are applying exactly the kind of rhetoric which white Rhodesians used to excuse their discrimination[1].
Modern Zimbabwe is not particularly known for having reliable electric infrastructure, even by the low standards of sub-Saharan Africa. This is not a good argument against the parent commenter's point.
You are putting two completely unrelated parts of my post and putting them together to form an argument I never made.
– “a) The sky is blue and b) there are rocks in the ground.”
– “Aha, gotcha. You claimed there are rocks in the sky; there are none.”
Comparing a volcanic eruption, a totally stationary event with predictable flows, that affected 3500 people in a town, where most of the residents have since left because of the problems living there, to a class 4 hurricane that crossed over six states, hundreds of miles, and affected millions of people, is dumb.
I've lived in the Seattle area since 2007. There has not been any power outage that affected 3000+ homes that has lasted longer than a day.
Additionally, Seattle area does not have common snow storms. It has extremely infrequent snow storms and thus has no reason to have lots of cold weather equipment. What we do have is frequent wind storms and lots and lots of trees (orders of magnitude more trees than all of Iceland, for example) and the wind often knocks trees into power lines and those are fixed in less than a day. In terms of neglect, that's not a problem. The longest outage I've ever had in the suburbs is 18 hours.
The real reason for the long duration blackouts is not failure to maintain infrastructure, it's because of natural disasters that damage and destroy entire swaths of infrastructure in a single event over thousands of sq km.
That someone, somewhere once used some accusation about a trait of populations as a form of discrimination does not mean that every recognition of that trait in a different population is also discrimination. Like, we can look at a person and say "oh, he never finished high school" that doesn't mean we're irrationally discriminating against him. You discriminate on exactly this basis every single day. You don't have people who don't know driving/cooking/medicine/engineering/automobile repair/etc. provide those services to you. I guess you're a bigot.
> Comparing a volcanic eruption, [...], to a class 4 hurricane [...], is dumb.
I agree. One can judge America’s lousy infrastructure and lack of action plan on its own merits. There is no reason to bring Europe into this. All I am saying is, America’s sparse population, nor the education level of immigrants is not an excuse.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gave U.S. infrastructure an overall C in 2025, including a D+ for roads and a D for transit.
The EU invested about 9% more relative to GDP, while the U.S. invested more dollars per resident because its economy is much richer.
American infrastructure is bad, the boomers in charge have no idea how to get anything done anymore, with California being the case study of nimbyism.
these are such classic american thought-terminating cliches. "we have more land and more people than anywhere else" "our population contains too many migrants who aren't as smart as americans used to be" etc etc. the different states and territories that make up the USA all have analogous counterpart countries whether you're comparing climate, population in the absolute, population density, GDP, or any other metric you care to name. many of the comparable countries will have a worse standard of infrastructure than that US state, but there will always be several which perform better, usually utilising fewer resources.
the thing all american states have in common is their american ideology, their american political economy, and their population of americans. it just so happens that these are almost always found, coincidentally or not, alongside extremely outdated and poorly-maintained infrastructure, and a class of ultra-rich parasites hoarding many of the resources. drawing connections between any of these phenomena is left as an exercise to the reader
Even outside of natural disasters, it's a very useful feature for people in the construction business and similar fields where mains power might not be always available.
Thin line between gimmick and very useful considering powerful worksite gas generators exist for less than $5k
Another way to view this is that driving a cybertruck every day is quite wasteful (no different than driving a full size gas pickup every day). One recharge cycle in a cybertruck uses enough energy to power a typical home for 8 days, 130kWh. If you aren’t doing truck things with it, it’s better to drive a more efficient EV or hybrid car. It uses almost twice as much Wh per mile compared to a model Y.
I think this is why these EV trucks don’t do well (ford also cancelled the F150 lightning). For truck things, they aren’t particularly capable (you’d get less than 100 miles towing). For daily driving duty, a car or small suv is much more efficient. You can power your home during a storm from most EVs these days, you’d just have to top it up more often
Cybertruck uses like a fifth of the energy of a full size gas pickup truck and is only like 50% more than a typical smaller sized EV. The truth is that most homes don't use much energy apart from hvac. The Chevy Bolt can also power a home for several days if you only have the fridge and lights running.
> Cybertruck uses like a fifth of the energy of a full size gas pickup truck
Yes, but the energy density of the energy storage mechanism in the cybertruck is substantially lower than a gas pickup truck
Yes, but a gas engine is so inefficient that it loses more than half of that energy to waste heat. But almost all of the electricity is converted into useful power in an EV. A 600hp Cybertruck will go 13 miles on $1 of electricity, but a 400hp F-150 can only go 4.5 miles for $1 of gas. 50% more power at 1/3rd the fuel cost is a pretty significant benefit.
Not a Cybertruck fan myself, but unless you are going to tow or take many long road trips, an EV truck will work great for anyone who can charge at home. And most people don't tow, or take long road trips, with their trucks.
> And most people don't tow, or take long road trips, with their trucks.
Except for everyone who owns an RV trailer.
Which is roughly 7 million out of 49 million pickups, so a tiny number.
One seventh of a category is not "tiny".
a loss of 7 million dollars in a 49 million dollar account is tiny, TIL
And this matters why? It still fits in a garage and powered someone’s home for a week, while also being their vehicle. Stationary batteries couldn’t have driven themselves to the supercharger.
I am not a fan of the truck, but let’s make some sense here
No, but a stationary generator powered off a small volume of gasoline could have powered the house for the same amount of time, and then a gasoline powered car could've driven to the gas station to refill jerry cans. Both of which would cost substantially less than a cybertruck.
Yea but then you have to deal with gas which is nasty and stinky and noisy and polluting while having way less efficiency. A cybertruck charged with solar power is much more elegant and civilized.
Producing that enormous battery pack is nasty and stinky and noisy and polluting. It's just a cost that's paid upfront and the pollution is done in someone else's backyard.
Still a net pollution win. Pollution associated with industrial manufacturing of durable goods can be contained to specific areas and dealt with at scale by domain experts more easily than the diffuse pollution associated with burning fuel at point of use.
Producing a gas powered car is just as stinky and nasty, so they cancel each other out. Once the EV is made, that can be the end of it.
It's paid up front once. That battery is going to keep being a battery for the rest of its commercially viable lifespan. The gasoline just gets used up and you pollute over and over again to maintain having power.
Better theirs than mine or yours.
A generator to power your house costs <$1k. A car that runs on gas costs <$5k, or if you want something that "matches" a cybertruck, ~$50k new. You can buy a lot of gasoline for those things before you get close to what a cybertruck costs. I don't care how "elegant" solar panels and a cybertruck might be if you're throwing money away to achieve it. (Ignoring that you can't both drive your truck and have your house powered from it simultaneously, and I don't think anyone in history has considered the cybertruck to be "elegant" - at least no one with eyes.)
Driving is wasteful. Cybertrucks and Prius's use similar amounts of energy per mile. Cybertruck is 0.4-0.5 kWh/mile, the Prius is 0.6-0.7 kWh/mile.
Of course the Prius Prime on electricity is way more efficient than both, but it still uses a lot more energy than a house.
European units (`Energy/100km`) work nicely here, lots of EVs are around `20 kWh/100km`, and most residential housing around here consumes less than `20kWh/day`, actually averaging `20kWh/day` would probably cover a well insulated house including heating (heatpump).
Yes, driving, compared to living, uses ridiculous amounts of energy.
With dimensional analysis you can cancel it all the way out until it's just Newtons, which is actually just the average drag force times some efficiency multiplier.
Dimensional analysis is a superpower honestly. Even in a software engineering career it's saved me from massive issues quite routinely
Mandatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/3038/
Also: https://xkcd.com/687/
The HP 48G / 50G provides incredible unit handling. My main use for it these days.
Any war stories?
Requests per second, bytes per request, bytes per second should all match up very closely under dimensional analysis or something is drastically wrong ;)
Little's law is another related phenomenon that is super critical. Measuring things when the units don't match has bitten me more than once.
Concur on Little's law
I'm curious if you can elaborate further? Would that make the comparison clearer, or is it just a side-note on your part?
Work (energy) is force times distance. Since we're talking about energy divided by distance, it's actually just average force.
Actually newtons are just a constant factor (3.6) compared to Wh per km, since there are 3600 seconds in a hour while there are 1000 watts in a kilowatt. For example 144 Wh/km (or 14.4 kWh/100 km) would simply be 518 N. This also means that pushing along a Tesla on the highway at constant speed is roughly as hard as holding a 50 kg weight, giving you an intuitive sense of how "hard" it is to keep things moving.
Of course, in everyday life, since we buy electricity from our utilities in kWh rather than joules, it's more convenient to talk about kWh per km (or per mile).
Thanks. Was there a particular reason I'm not grasping for noting that on the comment you replied to? Seems like a comment that could be stated about any comment tackling about energy/distance.
Actually, I guess the comment you replied to was also not really clear in it's point, so I'll blame that guy for maybe diverging from the topic somewhat :)
(not trying to be negative, really! but my brain is a bit fuzzy from being sick, so thus feeling a bit dimwitted as I ponder comments)
For comparison my cargo ebike, which is not particularly efficient, consumes about 30 Wh/mi (0.03kWh/mi) in medium assist while transporting an adult and two kids.
My road bike consumes energy bars! And fruit!
Surprisingly enough, this makes acoustic bikes less carbon efficient per unit distance than electric ones, depending on the details of your diet. Of course, once the emissions are that low, this is more a curiosity than actionable insight (beyond the typical "less meat/dairy = lower emissions").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW5b8_KBtT8
"Acoustic" bike? What is this madness?
I thought you were autocorrected badly but I guess this is a term people use?
It's a joke referencing electric vs. acoustic guitars.
What a coincidence, my cargo bike that regularly takes 50kg of cargo runs on the same stuff !
So you ride around town in a PacMan? Aren't ghosts a problem?
Just gotta always have a Power Pellet in range
I get 30 miles per sandwich! Beat that EV owners! :P
What's in that sandwich though? The Cybertruck using California non-renewable energy creates 162g of CO2 per mile. A sandwich full of lamb generates 666g. A sandwich of lentils does 40g.
Are those numbers right? 0.4 kWh/mile is 24.85 kWh/100km compared to about 14 kWh/100km my Kia Niro EV uses.
Those numbers are saying that:
- the Cybertruck uses almost twice as much energy as your Niro EV
- the 40% efficient Prius uses about 2.5x as much energy as your 95% efficient Niro EV.
what seems off?
Driving is not wasteful. Energy is not a scarce thing in the universe.
Using energy is not bad. Creating excess carbon emissions is bad.
We need to be able to hold two ideas in our heads instead of blindly repeating trendy religious dogma.
Driving uses a lot of energy. It's wasteful if you aren't getting a good use out of it (of which just driving around to relax could me considered a good use, but of which some manager requiring RTO might not be).
>For daily driving duty, a car or small suv is much more efficient.
I have a lightning and it averages 0.5kwh/mile and my electricity price is $0.15/kwh, so it costs me $0.075/mile to drive. At current gas prices that's pretty much the same as a very efficient hybrid compact car (55mpg @ ~$4/gallon). If I had solar I could probably offset almost all of the lightning fuel cost based on where I live (sunny) but it's so cheap it's not worth it.
Do you mean "much more efficient" in places where electricity rates are significantly higher than the national average? Or only much more efficient when compared to when you're charging at charging stations?
I mean efficient in engineering terms, not economics. A cybertruck is not as efficient as a small SUV (model Y) which is not as efficient as a sedan (model 3).
Cybertruck — 2mi/kwh
Model Y — 3.8mi/kwh
Model 3 — 4mi/kwh
But economic terms are what matters.
> Another way to view this is that driving a cybertruck every day is quite wasteful (no different than driving a full size gas pickup every day). One recharge cycle in a cybertruck uses enough energy to power a typical home for 8 days, 130kWh.
Driving in general uses a lot of energy. It’s the physically moving a 1,000 kg or more object that takes a lot of energy. Orders of magnitude more than a few lights or a phone. Same with flying of course; also moving a heavy object.
As someone towing every weekend with a Lightning, I get closer to 150mi.
ICE trucks are equally inefficient for towing. People just don't seem to be able to factor it in.
The thing is that ICE vehicles are so inefficient to begin with, but a towed trailer needs the same amount of energy regardless of what is towing it.
Imagine a trailer takes 1 unit of energy to move, and ICE truck takes 5 units to move itself, and EV truck takes 1 unit to move itself.
The ICE truck towing it would go from 5 units to 6 units, reducing the range by 16%.
The EV truck would now go from 1 unit to 2 units, reducing the range by 50%.
So the better your efficiency, the worse you are at towing. Ideally EV trucks would have such a huge battery that even when the range is reduced by 50%, it is still as long as a gas truck's range, but modern battery technology is still too sucky to achieve this.
Are they really that inefficient? My 94 Roadmaster sedan gets 14ish mpg towing 7000lbs at 60mph, which works out to a bit over 300 miles on a tank. I figured your average gas truck would do at least that well, and they have larger tanks.
meanwhile, my impression is the whole poor towing narrative (while true) is a big part of what killed the ev truck when how many people use trucks in the way they could otherwise use a four-door sedan.
"ICE trucks are equally inefficient for towing."
Not so sure about that one, boss. I can fully-load up a Ford Ranger to its 7500lb rated towing capacity and lose ~10% in fuel economy/range while you just dropped something like 30% (from the base power package range of ~240 miles, platinum package at 300 miles you're losing half if you only get 150 miles out.)
You're talking about the difference between towing and not towing per vehicle, not the difference in energy used towing between vehicles.
To get their equal ranges, a Ford Raptor would have a ~4 gallon tank. The fact that the cybertruck can go so far while not towing is the miracle. How far do you think you're going to get with 4 gallons?
If the underlying energy is coming from a renewable source, then it wouldn't matter all that much, would it?
Power still costs money.
Sure but even electrical power from natural gas or nuke plants is way cheaper than gasoline. Power plants employ massive economies of scale in generation. Even the cost of solar power has fallen dramaticially.
I think in general, a country trying to become industrious and eco-friendly by saving energy is like a person trying to become a millionaire by pinching pennies. Once you have optimized an economic system to eliminate the major cost centers, you're going to have extremely hard time improving it through further cost savings.
For example, If my expenditure roughly matches my income, I would need to eliminate 100% of my expenses just to make enough surplus to match doubling my income. Once I have managed the major cost centers (rent, insurance, etc.) it's not going to be worth my time to further optimize my expendature, the time would be better spent improving my income
For EVs, the fuel cost is already low. The next cost centers are like maintainance, tires, battery life. It would be better to attack these other cost centers or somehow pursue functionality that increases utility of the car.
Just FYI, in some areas of California, served by PG&E, electricity at peak times is $.58/kwh. When gas was around $4.00/gal, it was actually cheaper to use gas in that scenario. (I have a PHEV so I can do either.)
You can get a special account for home charging that lowers that rate to $.32/kwh, and at my work I can charge my car for $.28/kwh. At those rates, and with gas where it is now (typically $5.50 - $6.00/gal) it makes sense to use electric.
Yes it's ridicuous. Many of the charging stations here in PA charge 40c/kwh (my break-even is 30c/kwh). It's not profitable against gas even at these prices. Luckily residential rates are 13c/kwh but it's very inconvenient out here still.
Is that using today’s gas prices?
Yeah I did the math for like 3-4$/gallon, and the efficiency of my car.
It's just ridiculous, there are no charging stations around here and it's like 50/50 chance they charge you some outragous price and have an annoying app or it's completely free to use.
I own a pretty typical phev sedan (Gen 2. Volt), and I use more electricity on my 20 mile commute than the rest of my power usage combined.
All cars just use a ton of power moving a lot of mass. It is actually impressive, it's like 100KW at full tilt. I think i saw someone do the math for how much power transfer you would need to get EV charging as fast as gasoline refuelling: It's in the megawatts.
The only way you could signifigantly reduce power usage of vehicles is to reduce mass dramaticially with a motorcyle or autocycle. The Aptera is an interesting autocycle design based on this line of reasoning, but we are also seeing the emergence of a lot of electric motorcycles.
Yep, having each individual person commuting in their own car is just not that efficient in general. Another data point that amazes me is the NYC subway uses 4-5 million kWh per day. Sounds like a lot until you realize that around 4 million people ride it every day, that’s about 1kWh, or maybe like 20 cents of electricity, per rider. A person commuting 35 miles in an EV would take about 10 kWh daily. They’re never going to beat the efficiency of public transportation.
Also regarding filling up an EV as fast as gasoline, there’s a company in China that has demonstrated charging from 20-80% in 5 minutes. They’re using 3MW charging.
It makes you realize why gasoline has been so popular for so long, you can stop for 5 minutes and dump 500 kWh of energy into your tank. Unfortunately most of that is wasted as heat during the combustion process.
The subway has some great efficiency gains because it's use is so narrow. It can only transport humans and small amounts of luggage, and only goes from point to point with no variability or any real use for transporting any of the materials those people need to survive. You're just dumping the costs off to other areas.
Also, if you factor in the construction, idk what the timeline to pay that off would be.
ok, so then you should also factor in the environmental destruction cause by building roads, the cost of the roads, the environmental cost of burning petrol, the environmental damage of extracting and refining petroleum, and so on.
I thought the comparison was to a BEV, not ICE.
>Also regarding filling up an EV as fast as gasoline, there’s a company in China that has demonstrated charging from 20-80% in 5 minutes. They’re using 3MW charging.
Yeah that's the exact post I saw. I didn't believe the video at the time but I suppose it's possible with enough battery paralellism and cooling.
https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/new-ev-technology-cha...
In addition to the Aptera, I think there's a potential market for the enclosed 2-wheel vehicles also like the MonoRacer. The aerodynamic efficiency gains of enclosed cabin motorcycles is huge and greatly improves range, especially at highway speeds. I'd like to see something similar at a lower price range and produced in greater volume.
https://www.peravescz.com/electric-version/
In summer time with a pool and AC, we use 100kw in one day
Yeah the Silverado EV has my attention but it's the same issue: if you, like me, actually use your truck for truck shit, an electric truck is a substantial, notable downgrade from ICE.
That said if you have a Mall Crawler who's heaviest loads are your monthly Costco run, an electric truck would probably be great for you. I still wouldn't recommend a Cybertruck though.
Yeah, wasteful, like one day we will ever run out of energy lol
This is now a feature of most new Tesla vehicles:
https://www.tesla.com/powershare/#vehicles
> Powershare allows you to draw power directly from your compatible Tesla vehicle to power your devices, your home or the grid.
> Powershare is currently available for all Cybertruck vehicles, and all new Model 3 and Model Y2 vehicles ordered on October 1, 2026 or later.
> To verify if your vehicle has Powershare, navigate to ‘Software’ > ‘Additional Vehicle Info’ > ‘Powershare Support: Enabled’ on your vehicle touchscreen.
The caveat is that Powershare is low wattage. You really need to pair it with a Powerwall and have an average draw less than the limited capability of the car to supply it.
To power a house directly from an EV, the main options now are the EV trucks -- Lightning, Silverado, Cybertruck all can have this ability, 240V 30A typically
It's not _that_ low, from the Tesla site: https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-E261502...
> Model 3 provides a maximum draw of 11.5 kW.
You can't run your heating or air conditioning at full tilt, but otherwise that will get you at lot, this is 240V at ~45A.
I ran the fridges and essentials with my Ioniq 5 the last time there was an extended power loss.
I don't think the residential power generator is needed anymore if you have an electric car.
I have a Tesla Y. It has almost a week of power sitting in it on full charge. There's no hookup. The only power outlet is usb-c pd.
Completely missed opportunity. I won't be buying an electric vehicle that doesn't allow powering my house, ever again.
I have a 2017 Tesla S100D. (Yay back when we had letters and numbers!)
As you probably know, there's a 12 volt battery in these cars. That battery is automatically recharged by the big 100kWh main battery.
Some years back, I bought a 12 volt, 2000W inverter and connected it to this 12 volt battery in the Tesla, ran a couple of extension cords, and powered our refrigerator, extra freezer, and a number of other things with it for many hours. The main battery percentage in the car showed an appropriate drop. This actually wasn't during an outage, it was contingency testing. We already have a natural gas, 3600 watt generator that connects to one of our panels and use that during (unfortunately frequent) outages.
In my 2017, it's a bit of work to get to that battery, but it's quite doable and seemingly quite safe. The obvious, very rough/estimated/simplistic math is the 100kWh main battery divided by 2kW is about 50 hours. Different factors would push that number up and down of course.
During an outage I tried the 12v and found it was unable to surge the freezer box. Now, the inverter I used wasn't great, but IIRC I read they didn't allow significant current off the cig lighter outlet.
I will definitely try this again. If it works, that'd be great.
Doesnt powershare just work via the charging cable? It is a advertised feature of the Y
https://www.tesla.com/powershare/#vehicles
Only available on Tesla models ordered after October 1, 2026
Tesla models older than 6 weeks are SOL (for now? Maybe it just needs some backwards compatibility testing)
> Tesla models older than 6 weeks are SOL (for now? Maybe it just needs some backwards compatibility testing)
It sounds like it will require a hardware retrofit, that isn't being offered to consumers yet: https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/4585/tesla-publishes-vehic...
This is vehicle-to-load that requires a bi-directional inverter. They can totally do vehicle-to-grid without ANY hardware changes.
I think it's got V2H with lots of caveats (eg only on vehicles manufactured on or after October 1, 2026)
Have an older Model Y too. It’s a real bummer that Tesla decided to give up being the bleeding edge tech company. No V2L/V2H, no Apple CarPlay, no longer range leaders in their category (though still cheapest per km range).
> There's no hookup. The only power outlet is usb-c pd.
We have a 12v port that we can get ~200W out of, so that could power our internet.
But I agree, a real joke to have 150KwH (two EVs) in my garage and no way to even plug in a fridge.
V2H/V2L is a must have in my next EV.
> The only power outlet is usb-c pd.
Don't give the USB consortium any ideas...
No association, but something like this is "the right answer", IMHO: https://www.cargenerator.com/pages/use-your-car-as-a-backup-...
1) if you're permanently modifying your home or electric panel you're over $1k. (General Motors "Vehicle2House" is ~$10-20k for hardware + installation... an EXTREME investment unless you plan on regular "emergency" usage of it)
2) if you're buying some portable solar panel "battery boom box" you'll likely run out and the folding solar panel it comes with is more gimmick than reliable
3) if you're buying a "real" gas/diesel generator, you have to run it + change the oil every 6 months otherwise it might not start in your emergency situation
...just buy a thing that clips to your car battery and dangles out the front hood of your car!
You already maintain your car every 3-9 months, you already (should) have at least 1/2 tank of gas at all times (especially in a weather / outage situation), you can generally idle your car for at least 2 days off a tank of gas in an emergency, and if this thing can charge your phone/battery packs, keep your fridge running (kindof?), and run a small space heater overnight...
It makes soooo much more sense to buy a $500-$1000 emergency accessory that piggybacks off the car you already maintain than trying to stand up a whole extra distribution mechanism for "survival-ish power, maybe 1-2 times over 3-4 years".
I don't think the residential power generator is needed anymore if you have an electric car.
As soon as we got the adapter for our Ioniq 5, I sold generator to a neighbor. The car will run what we need for four days, which is longer than the generator and five gallon can of gas is going to last.
If you have an electric car that supports V2H.
Despite the dealer saying the used one I bought supported it, it turned out to not be available in the trim I got. My fault obviously for believing something a car dealer said.
This thread is first time I hear about V2H. (I don’t have any car yet, electric or otherwise.)
It sounds amazing. Only thing I wonder if it can even be set up so that it will be like an Uninterruptible Power Supply. So that when there is a blackout, the V2H supplies all the power without any interruption.
I have several computers but no UPS yet. Imagine if I could buy an electric car and when I am not using it, my car is UPS for my whole house including my computers! :D
> It sounds amazing. Only thing I wonder if it can even be set up so that it will be like an Uninterruptible Power Supply. So that when there is a blackout, the V2H supplies all the power without any interruption.
That's the point of V2H (or a residential battery, which it emulates). Although you still want a UPS for computers: I doubt "without any interruption" is at the scale of a UPS, and possibly not at the scale a desktop computer will require. Notably it depends how the grids cuts off, if it cuts off in one shot (like throwing the breaker) the failover should be almost instantaneous, but if it fluctuates before failing the battery might need a lot longer to engage.
Yes, but you need specialized (expensive) equipment. Expect a $8-12k bill.
Will the setup outlive the car? Or will I have to replace it when I buy a new EV?
$10k amortized over 20 to 30 years is not too bad. But if I buy my first EV and only keep it for 5 to 8 years before replacing it with a different EV then I’m less happy if I also have to replace all of the additional equipment that soon.
V2L will also do the trick, although it's more annoying.
If power loss is a regular event you probably want V2H, but if it's just a remote fear or something that happens once every 5~10 then V2L and a few extension cords will do.
I camped in a yurt in rural Maine last fall on a motorbiking trip. Needed to keep my phone charged for nav; woke up to find it hadn't charged all the way.
Went looking for the campground host and bumped into another camper, who was pissed the power went out. "Don't worry though - if you need to charge something, you can put it in my truck."
Ended up on a phone charging expedition that landed me in a local library for the first time since I was a child.
Came back and met the host: "Sorry about the power last night - some dumbass tried to charge his truck and tripped the breaker to the whole campground."
Charging a truck does that? What's that campground going to do with someone plugs in their 50A 43 foot-long tour bus RV?
(I'm sure there's more to the story, and the details aren't important, but if charging a vehicle is tripping breakers for the whole campground there's something wrong.)
“yurt in rural Maine” did not convey RV glamping to me.
Yeah, probably not your typical campground, now that you mention that detail. Still, something seems off, but here I go down a rabbit hole that isn't important to the original comment.
If pulling 24 amps through a TT-30 or 40 amps through a 14-50 trips a breaker, then it's the host's fault for the campground having a shoddy electrical system, not the truck driver's fault.
Approximately zero campgrounds have the capacity to charge more than one EV. They are sized for intermittent loads, just because it uses a 14-50 does not mean it is intended to support 80% steady draw.
Is that not the point of a 14-50 socket? To say that you can draw 50 amps? If you can't supply 50 amps without tripping a breaker, don't install a 50 amp socket.
At the risk of saying something obvious, the socket and the breaker are sized for the peak load, not for average load. A typical home might have 300-400 amps if you total up all the breakers even though the mains are 200A or even 100A.
Also, a bog standard 14-50 is likely not suited for 80% steady EV usage anyway. They make EV-rated 14-50s now because people keep melting the older ones. And that happens even though the vast majority of chargers won't draw more than 32A on a 14-50 due to the historical popularity of using 40A breakers for a 14-50 receptacle.
Lol in what world? Campgrounds routinely have next to no funding, if they even have power pedestals I wouldn't expect them to be wired for anything more than an RV.
The entire reason we have so many different types of receptacles is so to keep you from plugging in something that the circuit can't handle. They shouldn't be giving people 14-50's if they don't have 50A peak and 40A continuous available. (There is a code exception to only allow 40A peak/32A continuous to a 14-50, but that's all most portable EV chargers draw anyway, so I doubt it even met that. And TT-30 offers no such exception at all.)
Since the whole campground went dark, presumably it was the main breaker. The branch circuit must be sized to the outlet type, but the total rating of all branch circuits usually exceeds the main breaker rating.
That would be a reasonable explanation if most of the campsites had people charging EVs at their max individual current, but it sounded like just one did.
I would definitely be carrying a battery pack or two if going on a rural motorbike trip.
I installed a Peak Design Qi charger for the trip. Turns out their charger and their phone case weren't electrically compatible. I was pretty mad about it.
Battery's not super useful if you want to put the phone on your handlebars while riding. Screen is a lot more helpful than audio cues. If you can only charge when parked, it's either charge from a battery and have to top up the battery later, or just charge the phone directly.
The friend I did the trip with was on nav for the first part of the trip, but he had to turn back early for family stuff.
This is nothing specific to the CyberTruck; 123 kWh is a lot of battery but a better use would be to add home solar and then you're completely self-sufficient in addition to saving tons of money.
Of course there are two issues that are completely solveable if we had reasonable governance:
1. Adopting an Australia-style solar installation regulation and permitting scheme, which is literally 1/5th tho cost of the US method, and pays their tradespeolpe higher salaries than US workers get
2. Allowing EVs to feed back into the grid. This is something that naysayers would never be useful because nobody would ever want to waste battery cycles on their home. Which of course has always been nonsense. Don't buy EVs without this basic capability, IMHO.
I’ve looked at solar so many times and I’d love to get it…I just can’t make the math work based on the quotes I always end up getting.
That's entirely due to the US scheme, where utilities have ensured that it won't make sense nearly everywhere. Which is then combined with the asinine permitting situation in the US, where every city and county does something on their own without any order or sense.
This combines to ensure that any solar installer will do lots of very expensive things: 1) have a large sales force to close the sale, which last I looked accounted for 30%-40% of the overall cost of solar in the US, 2) roll out trucks many different times during the planning and install, each costing lots of money, 3) never have to compete with a bunch of other hyper-competitive installers and find efficiencies like batching installs together in the same general area.
There are also massively high solar PV tariffs in the US, more than tripling the cost of the panels, but that's not even that big compared to the rest of the needless inefficiency in the system.
Got it, so stick to the cybertruck if you're in the US.
No, I wouldn't say that's the case unless you have free dollars that work for the cyber truck and not for solar panels.
The now defunct fully electric Ford F150 Lightning also had the feature.
This is a pretty common feature in High capacity cars.
Even my mid-range BYD came with power strip attachment so you run basic electrical appliance with it.
Yea, I hate that the Lightning didn’t work out. I loved the vehicle when I test drove it. I just couldn’t justify the price for the range.
Yeah if you have to tow long distances it's not an ideal choice. Under normal use I get 250-350 miles (lower end for high speed cruising, higher for surface roads), which has been plenty. And at 50K (brand new) it was cheaper than any of the comparable gas versions. The unexpected bonus was that it hasn't depreciated much at all in the last few years.
They're a great used buy. I get ~315 miles out of mine with mostly highway driving. Paid $45K for a platinum.
All American car makers did not take lessons from Tesla's successes. It seems not even Tesla
Battery cost per kwh is way cheaper for buying them in a car than a power wall or similar system for many vehicles.
For years Tesla didn't let you know use the battery in the car this way because they made money selling power walls. Then they added the inverter as part of selling that thing.
Multiple other cars have it and someone now sells an inverter that works on old teslas too
There are cheaper, more reliable, and easily repaired generators though.
But can they also be driven?
You can drive a $30K car and have a $10K backup power system.
An $80K-100K car that replaces the two isn't some genius purchase.
Sure you can spend all the money you want on a luxury toy, nothing wrong with it, but it's weird trying to justify it as anything but that.
That $30k car could be an EV, too, and be part of the backup power system.
In Australia, $10k would buy not only a ton of solar panels but also batteries. The US has decided to make solar and batteries at the home super expensive, unnecessarily.
What you've shown is that there is a crossover where a gas car + generator beats an electric car.
That doesn't mean electric cars shouldn't be considered as power backup, or that buying a nice electric car vs a nice gas car doesn't come with the added benefit of "Don't need a 10k generator anymore".
> That doesn't mean electric cars shouldn't be considered as power backup, or that buying a nice electric car vs a nice gas car doesn't come with the added benefit of "Don't need a 10k generator anymore".
From redundancy perspective, a genset + car is hands down a better combo. A functional ICE car is cheaper and goes everywhere without any trip planning around charging stations, which is another plus.
If cost is your only factor yes. But the vast majority of people pick cars they like, and EV's are great. No need to dog on them needlessly. The trip planning thing is super overblown. Now 2 years into my first EV, going to a charger that's not my house _at all_ is quite rare - couple times a year; even when I travel Portland to Seattle, I don't have to stop on the way such that outside Olympia, I don't even know where the charge stations are. And that's the worst it'll ever be.
> and EV's are great. No need to dog on them needlessly. The trip planning thing is super overblown.
I never said EV is not great and it is nice that it is working out for you, but facts are facts. Also, while EV footprint is growing around the globe, there is wide vast world beyond USA where charging issue is still true (and the repair shops).
There's a vast world in the US where charging is still an issue. I live in an apartment in a major city with no garage or parking lot, so owning an EV would be very difficult, since there's no way to charge residentially. Or if you're on call, in a rural area, where charging at home might not leave you with enough charge to drive across the county without notice.
ICE cars are barely cheaper, almost never over any span of time due to cost of ownership, and there's no trip planning around charging. It's clear you've never done a road trip in a Tesla. Almost all Tesla owners have had ICE cars first, not sure who you're trying to convince here with your lies.
I mean presenting one set of tradeoffs just shows that there are tradeoffs.
If you're looking at two $55,000 cars, and one has power interconnect and one does not, it's not like adding a $1000-$10,000 generator on top is somehow immediately better unless you're adding in factors that make it better (like buying a cheaper car). There's 3 or 4 superchargers within a few miles of my house, and every time I've lost power I could easily go charge my car so I never worried about that.
Not everyone lives in that situation or has the same "one or two days without local power but chargers still work" threat model. It just so happens that's been the biggest actual, real, problem that my car could have fixed for me.
Yes, the crossover point is around $5-10k more than an ice vehicle, assuming the electric vehicle powers a house just as well as a gas generator does.
The cybertruck costs roughly $82k, which is about 40-50k more than other pickup trucks.
For the same price, you could install 2 1000-gallon propane tanks and enough gasoline to power your backup generator for a year nonstop.
An Ioniq 5 is not a $80-100k car, though. The difference in cost between it and an equivalent gas car is less than $10k.
Carmax has used 2025 SEL Ioniq 5's with 10-15k miles for 33k; that's practically new. Other than the ICCU issue, probably the best electric deal rn? 84kwh battery, I've can drive it Portland to Seattle on 2/3 of a charge.
My generator was $1000 and can power my entire house (including server rack). If I bought it used it would’ve been $500. I can trivially store 2 weeks worth of gasoline (and I do, constantly) and as long as somewhere within 700km of my house has gasoline I can get there, refill, and get home. I own 6 gas cars and they total less than $33k. My daily I paid $2500 for and average 6L/100km. (All CAD) If you start taking used cars into account the math goes waaaaaay towards gasoline car + generator.
I don't think there's a pure cost argument that favors EV's in this scenario. I think instead the argument is, EV's are relatively affordable now and have other benefits. For context, the Ioniq 5 is rated Edmund's _best_ EV SUV (afaik, most popular overall category). So e.g. this isn't an example of a crappy one to make na argument (I've owned it for 2 years, my first EV, its v. impressive).
So for someone who wants an EV (for the convenience, environment, or performance reasons), I think the statement is you can e.g. do so fairly affordably and also get free generator with it. Its a nice perk imo.
Does this also factor in operating costs of the vehicle? Especially considering gasoline at $4-7/gallon?
Then there’s also the potential scenario of “buyer prefers an EV anyway.”
In my case I’m currently driving a ~10 year old conventional gasoline vehicle that I purchased new, and I plan to keep driving it for roughly another 7-10 years. Given the current automotive product lineups out there I can’t think of a scenario where my next car will involve gasoline regardless of my desire for a backup power source at home.
> Does this also factor in operating costs of the vehicle? Especially considering gasoline at $4-7/gallon?
Depends on the vehicle of course. But for me at least, my 5-speed Civic for $2500 is way cheaper over its expected lifespan than a $7000 Nissan Leaf (and the Civic is way more flexible, since it can actually go more than 100km every 6 hours in the winter). At $1.50/L and 6L/100km, I can drive about 50,000km before I spend more on gasoline than the price difference between the two. The actual breakeven math (assuming 21kWh/100km) is closer to about 65,000km when factoring in electricity at ~$0.12/kWh. Oil changes are negligible (I do my own maintenance and oil changes), and a used Leaf is going to have just as many problems (if not more) with "the rest of the car" as a gas car (suspension, steering, brakes, tires, electrics, interior components, not to mention battery pack services).
If you buy a nicer EV than the break even point goes even further out. At least where I am, the EV equivalent of any gasoline car has a breakeven point of at least 50k km driven, usually more.
> Then there’s also the potential scenario of “buyer prefers an EV anyway.”
Entirely fair, but I'd still buy a generator and an EV. Because coupling your house power to your car just seems like a bad idea (to rely on it, at least; if you live somewhere that you never need to rely on off-grid power, then who really cares). For instance, my house has a sump pump that must run every ~hour or my basement will flood, and during storms that gets down to about 20 minutes. If my area doesn't have power, then I can't charge an EV anywhere nearby, and if I'm powering the house off the EV, how am I going to recharge it without my basement flooding?
I think you’re a huge outlier here. The median person is not doing their own maintenance and oil changes. $2,500 Civic that runs reliably is a meaningless data point. I might as well say I found 128GB of DDR5 RAM at an estate sale for $20.
50km-75km break-even is not a whole lot of kilometers.
You can compare a used first gen leaf’s poor range but in a short amount of time from now the bulk of the used EV market is going to be Teslas and Ioniq 5s that charge fast, are equipped with heat pumps, and get plenty of range.
Not everyone has a sump pump that needs to run every hour. Not everyone even has a basement. If we keep throwing out qualifiers we end up with a scenario that is not relevant to many people.
> 5-speed Civic for $2500
Good grief, what year is that Civic from? LOL. I just bought a 10 year old Corolla for my kid and it was 12 grand. Civics aren't much cheaper.
Out of curiosity, what do you normally do about the gasoline? I ask because I had a crappy little generator, and it seemed like my most common issue was old gas in the thing. Wasn’t a big deal or anything, just curious… stabil and run them regularly whether you need it or not?
Fortunately there's a couple (literally 2) gas stations near me that sell ethanol-free 91 octane gas, which has a shelf life of ~1 year. Sta-bil in theory extends that substantially longer. My solution is Sta-bil in the E0 gas, which gets used throughout the year for small engines (lawn mower, snowblower, pressure washer) and the generator if needed. I power up the generator once a month to make sure its battery stays charged and fuel keeps flowing (probably overkill). My power goes out 2-3 times a year, so that combined with the small engine stuff is enough to cycle through the gas in ~1 year, but if it isn't, I'll either burn it in the generator or just run it in one of my cars.
If you live in an area where you can only get ethanol gas, then you definitely don't want it sitting more than 6 months, even with Sta-bil (in my experience). So that means yeah, you gotta cycle through the generator's tank twice a year, which if you live in an area with reliable power, means spending more money than you need to on gas and oil. Also, keep all containers (including fuel tanks) as full as possible, to minimize the amount of air in the container, to minimize the amount of moisture the ethanol can suck out of the air.
The cost of my 2015 Subaru Forester is apparently around 7k. A gas powered generator is 2-3k (and can be refilled with quick trips to the nearest usable gas station) and you can also pair it with a solar-powered one with panels for 3k.
That puts the total setup price to about 10% of a CT-Energy station.
That’s a used car that’s more than halfway through the median lifespan of a vehicle.
We could start comparing used EVs if we want to.
And I could buy a hybrid that's only a few years old for 20k? I mean, it's still a magnitude less than the CT which is what I'm responding to. The idea that the CT miraculously saved a certain family from disaster and was thus worth the 100k investment is just silly.
I am confused why you think I’m defending the Cybertruck, I’m saying that a used ~$20k EV plus the equipment needed to hook it up to your house would probably satisfy most people’s desire for a generator.
Personally I never really understood the value of a generator in the first place but that’s just my opinion.
I have a champion tri-fuel that cost < $1k which runs essentially my whole house. It's plumbed into my natural gas so as long as that is up (it has never gone out), I don't even have to refill it.
I read somewhere that it's a big deal if a natural gas network runs out of gas because then air can get into the system. That can lead to explosions, so they have to systematically purge the entire network.
We have the same. $2K generator, while house transfer switch, natural gas hookup. Guess we'll never have a power failure again, since we just got a new generator.
> An $80K-100K car
See, your problem is assuming that the EV is 80-100K. Or that the ICE car is 30K. This is a contrived comparison. An average new car is well over 30K. And I bought a brand new Lightning for 50K. Being able to use 131kWh of battery for things other than driving is a pleasant bonus, and I prefer it to having a gas generator I have to keep maintained and store fuel for.
Yes. Many electric cars and trucks have this feature.
You an drive almost every EV that has that feature too.
Or rather, you can take half of the difference in price and install some proper PV + battery system in your house that can be used when there's isn't a catastrophe too.
No, but because they can't be driven, your house stays powered when someone goes for a drive.
you're inventing the alternator from first principles
> But can they also be driven?
Sounds like you're desperately searching for a problem where a specific make and model of a car can fit as a solution. That doesn't make the car any better than it is.
No, that's what my car is for. You can't drive your cybertruck when it's running your refrigerator. Wrong tool for the job.
It is an emergency. I'll compromise in an emergency. My fridge can sit unpowered for a couple hours while I'm driving, and that is all I need to drive anyway.
If there is a major outage most bosses understand that you won't be working normally because you need to deal with the emergency.
The amount of money you spent on a cybertruck could’ve instead been spent on a generator, gasoline for the generator, and a car to go buy gasoline for the generator. Or, battery packs & solar panels, and a generator, and gasoline for the generator, and a car to go buy gasoline for the generator. That car could even be an EV, just a much more efficient one.
I don't think anyone buys a cybertruck for this ability. But if you have one this is a nice bonus and the additions too use it this was are less than a generator
The power being delivered on wheels that go with you is the whole point. A permanently affixed generator doesn't help get power out into the middle of the field when I need to do things like weld farm equipment. There are plenty of solutions out there, but the power source and truck carrying the tools being one and the same would be quite attractive if the aforementioned problems were solved.
> the middle of the field when I need to do things like weld farm equipment
There is an entire genre of welding equipment designed for this scenario.
https://bakersgas.com/collections/miller-engine-driven-weldi...
Exactly why the power source being the truck I already own anyway is far more appealing, at least it would be if the aforementioned problems were solved. Special tools come with special costs that don't really make sense most of the time.
What if they also made the cybertruck capable of refrigeration.
They're not going to be making any sort of cybertruck anymore.
This is obviously not the primary reason to get a Telsa. But a full home generator will run you $15k to buy and install where i live, and a whole bunch of hassle to install with permits. I don't have one because my power doesn't go out that much. But if i'm otherwise on the fence about a vehicle, I would absolutely want this as a feature.
Maybe a generator sized to run a regular home in perpetuity, but I bet it's much, much less than that to have an electrician install a GenerLink and to buy a regular portable generator just powerful enough to run your fridge and freezer.
In our area, when a storm hit, the roads washed out, so the generators ran out of propane. Then the local propane companies ran out of delivery truck capacity because of the demand surge. Finally, the regional distributors ran out of propane.
Our solar panels kept the fridge running, but we were heating the house with a wood stove (it was very cloudy, so we were getting maybe an hour of sun a day). If we had bidirectional house charging, we could have had warm showers + used the heat pump: We would have been able to fast-charge the car at 100-200kw in town. The house can limp through 20-30 hours on ~ 25kwh, so the charger would charge the house at a few days per hour, including losses from driving to and from town + round tripping through the battery, and also running the house heat pump.
None of the other people around here stayed online. Some propane-dependent people had no electricity for > 2 weeks (with rationing, they managed to keep their generators online for about a week, and PG&E took three weeks to fix their lines).
This was in the outskirts of Silicon Valley, so better-than-puerto-rico infrastructure, but only just.
This is a total failure/incompetence of multiple utility institutions that we all pay for and depend on. An electric company that does not have the capacity to respond quickly to natural disasters and propane delivery infrastructure that doesn't have the reserves to weather such an event. Even a day without electricity should be unacceptable in a modern, functional society. How do we tolerate 2 weeks? I bet the CEOs of these companies are not going without electricity for 2 weeks.
We are far away from, but slowly approaching, Mad Max levels of institutional failure, and everyone seems to treat it as normal and unavoidable.
> This is a total failure/incompetence of multiple utility institutions that we all pay for and depend on. Even a day without electricity should be unacceptable in a modern, functional society.
Like the storm surge walls at Fukushima, all infrastructure is designed with a certain size of storm or event in mind based on historical averages and outliers.
Climate change is throwing all that to shit.
Your comment says plain and clear you’ve never lived through a “once in 100 years” level event more than once in a decade, and you don’t realize how much it would cost to upgrade what we’ve spent ~100 years building.
It’s trillions, just to get started.
I also wonder if you’d be fine with increasing taxes to pay for all that, or if you already complain about “high taxes”
You forgot "higher maintenance" that goes along with seldom-used things that run on gas. That gas doesn't drain itself, and if you don't do that, well, Amazon has carbs for Honda generators for $30. For something I might use once a year. No, thanks.
> but the emergency prepper in me
A friend who was in the Marines bought this point up along with another good one. (Bit of paraphrasing here) "It's the only bullet proof vehicle that's stock and acts like a giant battery in a blackout. As ugly as it is, it offers a lot of personal protection that people actually want and NEED depending on who they are and where they live. There are a lot of wealthy people who are buying them just for the fact that it's bullet proof."
A full home generator is cheaper and more convenient.
It's worth noting that there are several other (nearly objectively better) EVs on the market with larger battery capacity than the CT and have V2H/Powershare tech.
> They may be ugly, but the emergency prepper in me always wanted one after hearing that story
If all you're after is the V2L feature, you can get it for much cheaper: for 16% of the price of a Cybertruck, you can get 86% of the battery capacity (about 8 powerwalls) by buying a used Fisker Ocean Extreme with a 107kWh battery, vs. the cybertruck's 123kWh
It’s nice if the car you buy is made by a company still in business.
If you live in a sunny area, it's much cheaper to install solar with a hybrid inverter (like a Sol-Ark) with some batteries, and a generator for the extended outages. The cybertruck's battery is 123 kwh, whereas a gallon of gas contains approx 33 kwh of energy. A mere 5 gallon container of gas is more energy than the entire cybertruck.
Ford had EV trucks that could do that before Tesla did.
The ford home integration setup never really worked as advertised. The idea is that if the home power fails, the truck will output high voltage DC to an inverter that powers the house. No owners have got this failing over reliably.
Most people just plug an extension cord into the onboard inverter. You have to manually flip it on and plug it in, but 240V30A is plenty for an emergency. Doing it this way isn't any different from any other vehicle with an onboard inverter though.
It's completely illegal unless your home has a "transfer switch" (manual or automatic) installed for this purpose - and if you're plugged into the generator side of a transfer switch, then you can't charge the truck, only discharge it. There are probably modules designed for solar power that allow two-way transfer safely.
On the other hand there are no tricky rules for an electric truck to have extra power outlets in it.
I'd expect a lot of people might just use extension cords and plug critical devices directly into the truck.
As you should. That's a good way to handle emergency use. Much easier and safer than rewiring your house.
Bingo. Unsurprisingly, the ford system is basically an off the shelf solar system minus the panels and with a very tiny battery to kickstart the system.
Do cybertrucks work any differently?
I believe they use the vehicle's onboard inverter rather than an external one.
No one is saying they can’t. Drop the whataboutism, please.
The whole GP is irrelevant to the article regardless. Point being, what does it matter that the cybertruck has this feature when it's a not unique and b irrelevant to why it failed.
The whole comment comes across as an AI agent that is lacking severe human context by posting a complete non-sequitur, regardless if it is actually an agent or not.
It was an article about the end of the Cybertruck. It’s my one story about a Cybertruck so I thought I’d share.
First time I’ve been compared to an AI agent.
Yeah sorry - that's an overly negative take. It's just odd to me the TOP comment on a post about the cybertruck winding down is a random anecdote about it's battery backup capabilities, lol.
Do they now?
I know its been a few years, but the Cybertruck has been an epic disaster.
Cybertruck was announced first. Then Ford _released_ the F150 Lightning, including the ability to operate as a backup battery for a house. And a dozen or so months later, Cybertruck comes out at a much higher price than F150 Lightning ever was.
I think they might be commenting on the fact that the f150 lightning has been cancelled for some time now
Has it? It was the R&D car and really cut the costs of developing the robotaxi that they're going all-in on. 48v wiring, ethernet hub, giant casting tech, and a lot more.
The price point on the Cybertruck and the Lightning were comparable, particularly if you price based on range.
This works for the wealthy that can afford it, but would it be better to be press for a better grid for everyone instead? It amazes me how individualistic and wasteful the usa is.
Interesting, This reminds me a V2V energy transportation. There was a study in the past to investigate how could it be designed in the public transportation:
https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
Still imaginary though. (how come vehicles can exchange energy quickly?)
> how [can] vehicles can exchange energy quickly?
Currently in pilot on a small fleet of electric trucks in Australia (actual trucks - prime movers for road trains) - large standard swappable battery packs that can be removed and replaced with a fork lift.
Swap time ~ 3 minutes.
Tesla has been very slow in terms of adapting V2H technology. And others have better support.
I used to have an inverter I installed in my vehicle, mainly to run powertools, and brew hot cocoa during stargazing events. During the great North American power outage in the early 2000's, I ran an extension cord into the house and ran some basic stuff off it (I recall us being the only ones around who could watch TV to keep up with the news). It was only 1200W (though had an extra deep cycle battery hooked up), but helped enough for a few vitals.
What appliances exactly did the house have? And does it last couple of days even for appliances with compressors and heating coils? If it did that then thats pretty impressive! And your friend is a genius
My Renault Scenic E-Tech can also do V2H, it is not specific to Cybertruck.
may I ask why would it not be more sensible to have solar panels, battery and generators? Is that not a viable project? I'm consodering that for myself, never thought on a cybertruck
God, you just don't get it do you? \s
If that’s the only thing you care about you can DIY (or buy dedicated battery backup systems) with 10x more capacity for the same price. With heavier but cheaper Na-ion batteries in the horizon near future backup systems will be even better
Ford did the same thing, but that truck was built during the height of parts shortages.
Ford came in and bought up all of the parts from our suppliers and I had to qual random suppliers for weeks. Even at the time, I was thinking there is too much disparity and this will haunt us for years.
We were a bit more agile and I made a lot of kernel hacks to compensate.
Ford didn’t fare better for all their choices. Recalls galore. Honestly, they made my life hell so fuck em.
On to the truck, they had a proprietary charger and power wall solution but it could run the house for days.
The requirements for a home battery are vastly different than for a vehicle. For home, size and weight matter much less and capacity and discharge matter much more. Vehicle batteries would nearly always be the wrong solution to power a home.
The F150 hybrid is/was also supposed to be really good for this, and when the battery ran down, the engine would switch on and recharge it. So, you were not dependent on a super charger. All you needed is a working gas station. (This is based on an old video from Alex on Autos). So, you could buy a vehicle that is both cheaper and doesn't look like a dumpster and still be able to do this.
Battery capacity is just one side of the equation. You also need a strong output capacity otherwise you won't much. Also if you are to inject current in your network like that, then you need at least a source inverter to isolate yourself from the grid, otherwise it would most likely be illegal and very dangerous for technicians and neighbors. Also
I just have a gas heater, gas stove, and some spare 9kg cylinders of LPG. I can even hook them up to my gas hot water if we're desperate for a shower.
Huh. That's pretty cool! Now I'm wondering about the potential to do this with any EV. Something to research.
The Ford F-150 Lightning has always been able to do that, way before the Tesla cars enabled vehicle-to-load (V2L).
Delivering power back to the net is a standard feature on most EVs now.
Are the battery compartments water proof? We got hit by a hurricane a few years ago, and a few nearby teslas caught on fire from the floodwaters, torching people's houses.
that is not the only car who can reverse-charge the house. All EVs are theoretically capable of it, given proper power switching algorithm. (the hardware is already there, just how the four switches open/close to reverse the energy flowing direction.)
This is a feature on many new electric vehicles (such as the Kia EV 9). The obstacle is often the power company, which may require modifying your system to enable this.
I've always like their look, and I feel the hate on them is more due to Elon and it being a Tesla which is fair.
Weird looking truck, glad they took the risk
Yeah, I don't know if I like the look, but I'm glad to see something that's at least different.
Can you do this with other normal EVs? I assume they'd have lower capacity, but just getting some power for your fridge, wifi, and chargers might be worth.
Sort of. With my Kia EV9 I can use a V2L adapter to run an extension cord for essential items in my home. I understand in other markets there is a V2H connector so you can connect it to your home mains power but I don’t think it’s available in the US
Yes, I used mine in July 2024 to power my fridge and a couple of items when I lost power in Texas. Unfortunately the V2H requires a setup that I don't have.
In theory, yes, but they need to have the hardware/firmware to do it. Pretty sure most of the full-size electric trucks do so, but not sure about any of the smaller crossover EVs.
You also need to have the house setup to run off a generator. You don't want the truck power feeding back into the grid. IIRC, that's usually done with a big switch near the main panel.
No, you can't even do it with most other Teslas. Current models will give you 20A of 120V out from the battery, but most don't have an inverter big enough.
There is a model of Ford Lightning that has power sharing and now that resale values are way down it just might be a cost effective home battery that you can drive around during non-emergencies....
The power sharing in the lightning requires a discontinued home charger and several thousand in extra inverters and other home infrastructure to do the power share trick.
You can also just plug into the 30A240V bed plug and use the onboard inverter on the lightning or powerboost hybrid f150 with less headache.
You can do it with multiple EVs. The KIA EV9 is one of them.
In theory, it requires ONLY firmware changes. V2G/V2H works by establishing a "fast charging session" that directly connects the inverter to the high-voltage bus. And then it just siphons off the energy from the battery instead of charging it.
Car makers are reluctant to support this. In case of Tesla because of market segmentation.
Vehicle to Home(V2H) is unfortunately not super common, but it is being added to a lot of newer models this year and beyond.
Did Ford have Truck that did that and I am pretty sure a new and improved version is coming with the new Phantom.
I believe this but I'm curious how this works specifically? Did the home already have a transfer switch of some kind?
Many EVs can do the same thing.
It’s unclear to me how a vehicle battery can be 9-10x the size of a house battery, be used as a house battery, include an highway safe cabin, motors and wheels and only cost 4x what a single home battery costs. Oh, and at least Kia rates their battery warranty based on miles driven, so using it as a home battery does not impact any 10-year capacity guarantees.
AI tells me they are completely different though, so I must be missing something.
What you are missing is home batteries have INSANE markups.
5kWh of battery cells at the moment run around $500. The rest of the cost of production is in the power electronics (probably around another $500).
It's why you can buy 4kwh worth of battery backups from Amazon for about $2k right now. Yet the same thing sold as a home battery backup costs $5k.
Lack of competition and likely low amount of sells is what's causing the margins to be so high.
Right now it's largely a vanity product sadly.
Permitting in California more than doubles the installation cost of home batteries + PG&E gets to screw with you if you buy one.
Propane generators here have the same problem.
That still doesn't explain the price gap. You can literally just get a V2H EV and use it instead of a home battery (or, you could if the ecosystem was more mature).
If it's wired to the grid I presume. So if it's just for emergencies, don't wire it to the grid.
Good question - different markets with different margins and supply chains?
The answer is mostly that the powerwall is an incredibly overpriced home battery.
They want ~9k for a freaking 13.5kwh pack.
I can buy a UL certified, 16kwh, outdoor rated pack for 3.5k (ex - EG4 allweather)
I can buy just the LFP batteries themselves for the new powerwall 3 LFP version (no BMS, no shell, no certification) for $1116... https://18650battery.com/products/byd-302ah-3-2v-lifepo4-pri...
Powerwall is a scammy product. WAY too expensive for the storage it provides.
---
So the summary is: Cybertruck is using a different battery chemistry, Powerwall is a scam.
(I mean - to be clear, the Cybertruck is also a scam, but it's a different kind of scam not directly related to the battery capacity, since it's hauling around a 123kWh NCMA battery pack)
Wasn't aware of EG4 on the market now. Good. So many of the older home backup producers have ridiculous markups on their batteries.
I think "recycling" cybertrucks in this manner, basically to reuse their batteries, may give them a more practical afterlife then when they were a truck.
I just checked and prices are going to have to come way down. Who is buying a 2024 Cybertruck for $70k+?
Try an F150 Lightning with the Extended Battery
Very few, I would imagine. Pricing is just divorced from reality (as in, the point where you'd be able to successfully sell one in a reasonable amount of time), the "I know what I have" stubbornness that is pervasive among a certain type of seller to their own detriment. Pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if this specific car basically self selects for that type of person.
[0] https://caredge.com/tesla/cybertruck/depreciation
Recycling them to make saucepans from the stainless steel would give them a more practical afterlife then when they were a truck.
Not bad. The shell would also make a nice BBQ.
It's a cool car. I'm glad it exists. All SUVs look almost identical. I'm glad it was different, not for everyone but it was an attempt to make something innovative in a very stale market.
It's exhausting reading these kinds of articles from a tech publication none the less. It's just so negative. Here is a summary of paragraphs:
Cybertruck is ceasing production
Here's a mean tweet from some X account with 2,649 followers: "Fuck that shitbox"
The car rusts sometimes
Truck sold very few units
Even with low sales they're still going down
Wildly unpopular with design flaws
Mention embarrassing demo from 7 years ago
It just goes on, truly exhausting.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a36715409/why-does-...
You can do the same thing with an f150 or Silverado ev and won’t have to drive around in a discontinued rolling doorstop.
https://www.f150lightningforum.com/forum/threads/franklinwh-...
https://gmenergy.gm.com/vehicle-to-home
> They may be ugly, but the emergency prepper in me always wanted one after hearing that story.
The cybertruck is $70k, which in a 14-day power outage is $5000 a day.
There are cheaper options to weather such a storm. Like flying first class to New York, getting a limo to the Central Park Ritz-Carlton and spending 14 days being waited on hand and foot.
Counterpoint: I live off-grid and am thankful I can just power my house with batteries instead of a massive car that looks like a Dumpster
The F-150 powerboost is perfect for this and has existed before the Cybertruck. https://www.nucarfordtilton.com/f-150-powerboost-explained/ big bonus, you get a real truck with it too. That can do real truck things.
I agree that it’s cool, but is it practical? If your goal is to power your house, you can buy a whole-house backup generator for about 1/12th of the cost of a cybertruck.
A cyber truck as a prepper rig is laughable. EV's do a lot of things well, but if it's a prepper rig, you'd need to have a generator and the fuel set aside to charge it. You can't assume that there will be power near by. If there is power, you can't assume that you will have access to one of the relatively few chargers available.
You can get a generator that will get the job done for under 1000 bucks and you can store diesel or propane to get the job done.
That's before we factor in the likelyhood needing to travel quite a distance (and assume there is no access to grid power), and that you won't have any of the cybertruck defeating issues like heavy rains or standing water that might void it's warranty and fry it's electronics.
A prepper rig is a mechanical diesel that can be roll started or hand cranked without batteries, has no electronics to get fried except the radio, and can burn almost any combustible fuel source on hand. Slap a 200 Gallon transfer tank on the back and keep it full and you can drive across the country without fueling up. And if you also have that diesel generator to power your house, you've got a years worth of fuel for that generator.
You can get all that done for around 25k USD, so, not sure how a cyber truck even enters the conversation.
> A cyber truck as a prepper rig is laughable.
It was. Everything was pathetic. The claims of being bullet proof, being an amphibious car, being all-terrain, rugged, etc.
Sometimes it sounded like it was all for political theater.
A real pepper would want a car that runs on gas with a carburated engine and is also a common car. Not a niche one off that requires fussy infrastructure just to refuel.
Are you prepared if a meteor hits and wipes out the grid ?
What are the chances that the supercharger station even has power after a hurricane? You want something that is already on the property. I've had roads blocked by fallen trees for days after a windstorm event.
If you are concerned about riding through a 14 day+ event you need a generator. Even a fully off-grid solar / wind setup could be compromised in these kinds of storms. I've seen entire roofs cleaned off by a <100mph storm. Anything not bolted down to a concrete slab cannot be depended on.
High. They typically need heavy power lines that are either underground or way up overhead.
A generator would work better in this situation right?
The Hyundai/Kia E-GMP platform cars also support this (V2L), as do quite a few others.
This is becoming a standard called V2H (Vehicle-to-Home) and doesn't require a Cybertruck.
I would like to see more vehicle-to-grid capability out of cars, EVs, Hybrids, and Gas Cars alike.
My F150 Lightning has an even bigger battery pack in it... and a simple 240V outlet.
A gas generator is a lot more flexible in this situation, and under $500.
Generally a propane generator is a wiser, more reliable backup option. Propane doesn't go bad, and in disaster scenarios often the sun isn't shining or your solar panels could be damaged. Solar + battery is a good system when the weather is good and everything is going well, but for a fallback system a propane generator can't be beat.
Yeah, this is where I landed, too. Except propane bottles only get me about 3-4 hours per bottle and it's pricey. It ran $50 for one day of AC during the last outage.
I just bought a kit to convert to natural gas though. Most people who've done it are happy to not change bottles all the time. It won't help after an earthquake but the regular PSPS outages I get make natural gas a better fit for the moment.
Not everyone lives somewhere with natural gas service, and gas service could also go out in some types of disasters.
It’s possible to get larger propane tanks and refill them more cheaply (rather than exchanging expensive grill tanks at the store). Some hardware stores will refill tanks directly. You can even get very large tanks (refilled by a truck that comes to your house) if you want weeks of power on tap. But this is probably overkill for most, unless you’re very remote.
I tried that but services want regular deliveries and aren't interested in refilling emergency tanks. And a tank large enough for decent power backup will be hard to move.
Ah, ok. They make auto-change regulators that allow you to hook up two tanks, and two 30-60lb cylinders should last quite a while. But if you have natural gas service and aren’t in an earthquake or hurricane zone then that’s probably better.
Im not sure AC is the sort of thing most people are thinking about needing power for in an emergency or disaster scenario, its one of the most power hungry things you can use.
As a person in the deep south where summer temps are over 100F and RH is in the 80s, having a generator powered window unit in our smallest room is more necessary than even the fridge. Thankfully the window units only pull 400-500w or so, so even a small dual-fuel running propane would run all day on a 20lb tank.
This is a common enough occurrence in rural Louisiana, at least. And I think almost everyone I know has a 200gal or larger propane tank in their yard, specifically for multiday outages. My father-in-law doesn't have a single propane appliance, but he does have a 250gal tank, for his generac.
We don't we have a single 100lb tank, but that will run the little AC for 3 or 4 days.
During the last outage my neighbor had to leave his house because of the temperature. He had a generator running for days (off of the natural gas line) so I thought he was fine, but his old AC wouldn't start so he texted me as he was leaving to stay at a hotel.
This is important enough to me that I researched slow start AC units ~8 years ago when replacing my AC. I learned that almost any heat pump will do, so that's what I have.
In large areas of the US if your AC goes out during the summer you can be dead within a day or two. There's many deaths of elderly people annually when their AC failed and they didn't have the mobility to leave for a cooling center before they passed out.
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/heat-waves-and-annual-death-ra...
Thats crazy to me. I would never live in an area where electric power is required just to exist and not die.
It's not so much the temperature per se, it's the fact modern houses are designed around AC and American houses in particular are basically giant wooden garden sheds.
In a traditional house with thick brick/stone walls and large roof overhangs you'd be uncomfortable but a lot less likely to die
It would be smart (assuming a properly insulated and air sealed house--which to your point is uncommon in the US) to build an insulated room with a dedicated hvac zone in the center of the basement or somewhere similar that is basically your "safe room" for such a situation. Would not take much to cool it and has the advantage of being maximally distant from the exterior walls to in case you are worried about radioactive fallout ;)
For most people their car would work fine, of course not everyone does drive. Sometimes cities will open "cooling centers" (school gyms, event venues, etc.) for those cases.
It takes a large amount of fuel to keep a car cool (or warm) compared to a properly insulated interior room in a properly insulated house. Cars have almost no thermal insulation to speak of, just sound deadening material, and they're made of thermally conductive materials.
Yeah but people already own them and you can drive to somewhere else that has AC where you can hang out.
We got a 500 gal propane tank. Get it topped off every so often, can power two large portables and one built in generator for longer than we've ever needed, even close to it.
I'm looking into getting a large EV so I can move off of a propane generator. A generator needs service, it will cut power for 5-10 seconds while it starts up (so your PCs and whatnot will power cycle), and it's loud.
Always a good idea to have a UPS, even if you don’t have a generator, to protect your home computers from transient outages, power flickers, or grid voltage fluctuations.
I live off grid and only have solar because it was cheaper than the wire.
Also, I built it myself so the labor costs aren't included but I am about $8k into a system (4kw of panels, 6kw inverter, 15kwH battery).
I personally wouldn't be able to make vehicle cheaper than having no grid tie. I get that the costs are different once you include labor. Also I am on 40acres so the panel set could be ground mounted.
But to make something commensurable with a propane home-powering generator seems a lot more do-able.
Won't an EV have maintenance costs too? And cost a lot more than a propane generator? And take time to switch over to supply electricity to your house?
The quiter part makes sense, but there are a lot more practical solutions to that too.
You (probably) need a car any way. So the choice isn't between an EV or a propane generator - it's between an EV, or (propane generator and a car). With V2H and something like a power wall or other battery backup, when the power goes out you would still have a few hours at normal usage where you can go and plug your car in.
I'm running an EG4 system with a decent amount of battery storage. I have a generator port on it that makes it easy to plug in a portable generator to assist the PV and charge the battery. It's really easy for me to roll my generator over and run it a few hours a day to supplement the solar. Even a cheap 5kW generator is plenty because it doesn't need to power the house, just provide a continuous charge to the batteries.
Wouldn’t a diesel or gasoline generator be better? You can carry both in a bucket found on the side of the road which isn’t possible with propane.
A diesel generator would definitely be better on paper, but the costs involved are much higher as those are generally a permanent install. A gasoline generator requires much more maintenance around fuel and the carburetor as gasoline goes bad over time and modern gas/petrol with ethanol in it sucks up water from the air. A propane generator, while it is a bit more annoying to refuel, especially if you upgrade to larger tanks, is perfectly happy to sit for 6-12 months unused and then start right up on the tank of fuel that's been sitting next to it for that time period.
A propane generator is a temporary solution but likely is good enough for most folks who just need to keep the fridge cold and maybe charge cell phones. It's not going to be able to run your house AC or anything, though.
Very cool story! Love hearing neat use cases like this.
Just buy a generator and you don’t have to support a fascist? Some of you guys are sooooo fucking weird
If you need to worry about such extended outages, why not just do the normal thing and install propane tanks, a stationary generator, and a transfer switch?
sounds like you'll get a deal on a used one shortly...
I powered the house off a much less fancier 4XE Jeep, which has a generator, and so, arguably more versatile as you don't need spend time charging.
Other EVs can do this. You don't need one that ended up being twice the price and half the range and not an actual steel exoskeleton as promised.
Almost every Chinese car does Vehicle to Home but of course Muricans have outlawed what competes successfully with them
Just buy a diesel generator. Much simpler tech and more reliable in emergencies.
why put in powerwalls without local solar panels?
Get a Tesla semi when it comes out
hybrid ford f150 can do this too
You can buy the batteries installed at your home, charged during the day with solar or night with a small ICE generator. That plus a real same-class truck still costs considerably less than a CT.
You can get a lot of backup power for less than 100k.
my jelly neighbor story is that when our neighbors replaced their ice truck with a cybertruck, a calm descended on our block. iso of getting woken up by the rumble of that damn thing when they started it, they just zoomed off, silently. its the first time i internalized that electric vehicles are inherently better than ice. more human.
Or you know you could buy a $8k natural gas generator, seems like a really poor justification to buy such an expensive car.
>The battery capacity on those things is equivalent to 9 Tesla Powerwall units or something close to it.
What the fuck
what about balcony solar power or a turbine? Chances are if your power is knocked out by a storm the closest supercharger also would be.
Yes, drain your car to power your house, so in an extended outage your house will be out of power and you will be stranded. Risk management, people. You don’t know if power will go out in even more places, or stay off for an extended period of time.
- Federal EV tax credits are over.
- The emissions credit market (where Tesla made most of its money) is dead due to lowered standards.
- Manufacturing costs haven't come down.
- EV sales share in the US is down to 6% (and falling every quarter).
- Chinese EVs are dominating every market outside the US.
- All the overhyped moonshots (sub-$30K car, unsupervised autopilot, autonomous robots) are nowhere to be seen.
It's hard to see where Tesla goes from here as a company. The stock is still surviving on Elon hype but has been stagnant for 5 years. The day he gets bored and decides to resign to focus on SpaceX full time the company is basically done.
> EV sales share in the US is down to 6% (and falling every quarter).
It's not every quarter, but it's steady and that spells absolute disaster for US car manufacturers:
https://www.coxautoinc.com/insights/q3-2026-ev-sales-report-...
US car companies have been protected and bailed out too many times and are now not only completely uncompetitive on the global market, but set up to be completely demolished as EVs take over.
Their bad leadership and overall inefficiency mean that either investors are going to pay a massive price, or US consumers are going to pay a massive price. If we keep on pushing up consumer costs by propping up bad manufacturers with protectionism and bail outs, the US's entire economy is drug down by that.
There needs to be some creative destruction, ruthless culling of the least efficient manufacturers, so that their best workers can go to the better manufacturers, if the US is ever going to be a top tier car manufacturer again.
I hadn't followed just how bad US manufacturers were failing at EVs the past two years, what with all the other disasters unfolding, thanks for the wake up call. Two years of wasted time, of the US falling even farther behind... such a massive fail and yet not the most massive.
It isn't just US manufacturers.
I'd say Koreans are probably the closest to the Chinese, but Japanese manufacturers have fallen behind. Toyota spent too much time with hydrogen. Nissan? Honda? Mazda? None of them have a solid lineup of electric vehicles.
I appreciate Toyota's hybrids, but that is not the future and every model year that they try to delay, they are missing out on developing the technology, experience, internal expertise, and platform refinement.
Toyota is the leader by profit, has been selling cars with batteries and electric motors for 3 decades and simply doesn't want to pile into a crowded space where you effectively have to be dumping your product at cost to have a chance of success.
While most others are wasting money on failed forays into the EV market, Toyota has quietly made their entire fleet (modulo trucks) hybrid.
At this point anyone can design a chassis to accommodate a skateboard battery and some drive motors. The only thing Toyota would need to wholeheartedly jump into EV is the supply chain and production capability for big battery packs. Admittedly this is a biggie, but don't discount the possibility that batteries are not at the end of their evolution and early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor.
> early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor.
the iphone is an outlier imho, and i dont think EV will replicate this.
The manufacturing capacity of batteries in china will continue to be a dominant force, and prevent competition in other countries from really setting up properly.
Not to mention the chinese EV giants have the R&D budget to be the ones to discover new chemistry.
I think this might be more like a TSMC situation where the rest of the world is always behind.
China will have a critical mass of research, scientists, manufacturing, engineers, and the right government buy in to stay ahead because there's so much demand.
Yeah, my Toyota BZ is great.
Yeah that's nonsense. Toyota is behind on a number of technologies. They are still making cars, but its the old style of cars in every aspect. They haven't done the integration of technology and the car the way Tesla or China has.
They are surviving because of massive scale but they are losing ground.
> The only thing Toyota would need to wholeheartedly jump into EV is the supply chain and production capability for big battery packs.
So the only thing they need is the hardest part of the supply chain. At Toyota scale building that supply-chain is fucking gigantic. It takes a decade to build that.
All the battery companies already have large multi-year of-take agreements. And they are not building massive new capacity without new demand.
> but don't discount the possibility that batteries are not at the end of their evolution and early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor.
We haven't seen new form factors in many decades.
As for chemistry, everybody is working on that. Toyota has burned billions and achieved nothing.
Yes new chemistry are constantly coming in, but the reality is, each new chemistry innovation needs a decade or so to scale. And it mostly builds on existing supply chains and suppliers.
Take a look at things like silicon additives, they have been talked about for a long time, and it has been increasing. And it will continue to increase, but its not a magical pill that makes all existing battery factories obsolete.
Battery companies sell their new state of the art batteries to their long term partners first. And those partners are the first to learn of new innovations.
Nokia was the leader by profit until they weren't. They even experimented with hydrogen powered phones!
Toyota didn't just spend (past tense) too much time with hydrogen, they're still going with it trying to take a "multi-path strategy" that includes hydrogen engine development.
I'm not sure where they think the market for this exists in sustainable numbers.
It's really insane. I live in Japan where you'd think Toyota may have some pull to make their dream come true. My city actually has one (1) hydrogen station, it's only open a day or two a week - it's basically only open by appointment, you have to call ahead if you want to be sure to be able to fill up.
I have an insider friend that says they just don’t believe in battery electric and so have never built the supply chain for it. It leaves them searching for the next thing despite what is occurring in the market, they think they’ll prevail as they’re not focused on a (perceived) faulty approach. I’m not privy to all the details they have to reach that investment thesis but it explains a lot we see from the outside.
Oh no, how dare a company try and invest R&D into a diversified portfolio of propulsion technologies. I'm sure HN has all the right ideas, just like they had the right idea when Starship was almost sure to beat SLS to orbit and full IOC a decade before Artemis II. I'm sure Morizo is crying after winning his latest gentleman drivers' race and wiping all his tears away with his paper yen.
It is genuinely insane how divorced SV is from actual people and reality.
I'm old enough to remember when people said 'Falcon Heavy is fake', 'SLS' is real. After that they shifted to 'Starship is fake' SLS is real.
And that SLS launched first isn't surprising it started to get 2 billion $ a year funding long before SpaceX had any money to invest in such projects.
And what matters for a rocket isn't 'first to orbit' that's only how idiots compare rockets. What matters is first 10 or even 100 flights.
And as for R&D, fine do R&D, but you still have to produce what actually sells. The simple fact is, hydrogen cars, either fuel cell or ICE are rounding errors. They have been rounding errors for decades and have made essentially no progress despite 50+ years of continuous government funding and R&D.
They are not just doing R&D, they have literally spend marketing money demonizing EVs. They have encouraged and leaned in to all government lead efforts to delay the EV industry. They have lobbied for regressive legislation. To act as if 'all they do is some nice R&D' is pathetic.
Toyota has not done like Tesla and invested in infrastructure, like hydrogen fuel stations. Because they know this is delusional and will never happen. Their hope has always been that government is going to build all the infrastructure for them, and pay for their R&D. They have been grifting government R&D money for literal decades. Even while with just a fraction of that money the EV industry was established. They have been lobbying Japans government for decades and have used that to prevent more beneficial R&D and infrastructure investment.
And Toyota is barley even selling these 'diversified portfolios'. Go and actually try to buy a hydrogen ICE or hydrogen fuel cell cars. In literally 99.9% of the world you can't buy them.
Hydrogen is a pipe-dream propped up by government budgets and anybody that believed in its wide deployment in 2000 was a moron, anybody that still believes in it in 2027 is straight up delusional. So if anybody is divorced from reality its you.
It's a shame Nissan didn't lean harder into EVs since the Leaf is a great little car, and they were releasing them since 2012.
I agree, but I was more pointing out Nissan because they were relatively early with the Leaf which, I thought, was pretty successful.
Nissan has the Ariya (crossover SUV) and Micra (small city car), both of which have been very well received and are popular in Europe.
Nissan seems to be scaling back their EV push in the US, though — but not in Europe, as far as I know.
Nissan is also making EVs for the Chinese market, which are not being exported anywhere else.
That does beg the question though, if none of the major non-Chinese manufacturers are focused on EVs did they all entirely miss the boat or do they know something the Chinese don't?
Its absolutely possible that they did all miss the boat, but even the stats just in this thread point to a drop in EV sales and economic challenges with regards to price and demand. The Chinese keep prices low with very low labor costs and subsidies from a totalitarian government, our goal isn't and shouldn't be to compete with that on price.
> Chinese keep prices low with .. subsidies from a totalitarian government
Lower labour costs per hour can be balanced against lower cost of living for workers.
Industrial Policy Spending for China’s EV Sector (subsidies) have dropped from $13,800 USD per vehicle in 2018 to $4,700 USD in 2023 and are less today in 2026.
How do these subsidies compare to US subsidies to the fossil fuel oil and gas industry?
China, for all its flaws, is the undisputed master of innovative automated manufacturing. They can iterate over design revisions quickly. They will build you whatever you want, and, unlike twenty years ago, it will be insanely precise, and everything that can be automated will be. US and EU automakers have to keep their unionized employees happy, which means less automation and less precision and higher prices. Robots and AI don't unionize.
BYD subsidies ended this year and Xiaomi was never subsidized.
I hate to see it and I hate to say it, but the last time I was in Europe there were A LOT more giant american vehicles, at least outside of city centers. I really hope this SUV plague doesn't go global.
Are you a time traveller from 2010? SUVs are already the most popular kind of car all over the world. That ship has sailed.
I don't think that's true anywhere in Asia, except for maybe the Middle East.
One state makes up over a third of all EV sold in the country EV’s have a way to go in the United States. Hybrids seem to be doing a lot better in recent times.
California accounts for roughly 35% of all U.S. EV sales, though some estimates put its share near 40%.
That's certainly a way to view the data, but it's a way that ignores the trajectory of the technology and sets up The Big Three for complete failure.
The Big Three have not figured out how to make compelling EVs, without a doubt, but it's not the technology that's the problem, it's the leadership's product choices and failure of implementation.
Meaning that the entire industry will be pushed farther and farther behind in the race, only to be completely disrupted.
This will happen far slower than the transition from Palm to iOS-style phones, because the lifetime of cars is far longer than phones and are far larger investments, but the trend is inevitable. EVs are superior on so many different fronts that there's ~0 chance that gas and diesel engines persist except for a tiny fraction of future market share.
US manufacturers are trying to delay the transition as long as possible, which only ensures their own doom.
It's not just US manufacturers. Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, etc. are also falling behind on the technology, expertise, and platform development.
Koreans look competitive. It's interesting that the later the entrant to the market, the faster they are to adapt.
Vinyl is still doing great, better than CDs actually. Technical supremacy is useless, if the customer base wants nostalgia
Great against CDs because those were obsoleted by streaming. Streaming takes over 80% of the revenue and probably far more of the volume.
Your comment would be like if 85% of the market was EVs and you said that cars with manual transmission are still doing great, better than autos.
It's not just the Big Three, it's a boat anchor of the Big Three + Tier 1/2/3 suppliers. Tesla probably most vertically integrated of any, therefor most likely able to survive a major pivot.
Well, there's that one US manufacturer that bucks the trend, so it's not _all_ of them.
California is the world’s fourth largest economy, so this tracks. Whether or not flyover country gets EVs is immaterial to the overall US situation. They can pay forward curve petrol prices if they so choose (“freedom!”), or find a suitable EV if that is a more suitable choice for their needs, unless federal policy returns to assist with purchasing. I am hopeful, concerning recent regime change, that federal EV incentives come back to enable folks to buy affordable EVs (because we should be optimizing for affordable zero emission mobility for all, imho), but only time will tell.
Wyoming‘s population of 600k people is less than one percent of total US population, for example. Californians buy about half that number of EVs per year (~300k-400k).
Flyover country has several times the population of California. It’s vital to the success of American manufacturers that their products sell well there too.
Nah. You go where the purchasing power is, and that is not poor rural America that is evaporating [1]. K Shaped economy. That’s related, but distinct from the fact that American auto makers are already dead. They collectively wrote off $50B in EV investment to turn away from EVs, and GM just created a $20B multi year stock buyback plan while not investing more in electrification. That is an active choice to allocate that capital to profits instead of investment to build EVs.
The future is affordable, well built Chinese EVs. They already have the capacity to build 50M EVs per year, more than half of global total light vehicle demand. They are currently exporting ~12M/year, and constrained only by there not being enough marine car carriers available to ship more. They are building more car carriers to ramp exports to the world. How long would it take the US to learn how to build 10-20M EVs per year? A decade, probably more, on current trajectories, during which Chinese automakers will continue to ramp. “Build the machine that builds the machine.”
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48586250
(the US sold out its future in this context for globalization and shareholder returns, unfortunately)
There are plenty of well-off people in poor rural areas, and there are plenty of wealthy urban areas in flyover country. California is an important market but it's not so important that the rest can be ignored.
Please provide geographic economic citations of where.
Here’s mine:
Interactive: Visualizing Median Income For All 3,000+ U.S. Counties - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/interactive-median-income-u... (blue is better, red is worse)
(assume 45k-$50k new vehicle price in the US, back out to the income needed to support a payment at current interest rates on a 5-7 year term, which is roughly $500-$1000/month, which is why auto loans are currently defaulting at record highs)
/r/dataisbeautiful: USA auto loan delinquency rate from 2000 to 2025 - https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ueked2/oc...
It makes no sense to respond to this with a chart of median income. That tells you nothing about how many well-off people there are beyond limiting it to less than 50%, presuming the median is below whatever threshold you consider.
Here's a table of states with median, top 20%, and top 5% figures: https://beforeview.com/income-percentile/state
Mississippi, the lowest one on the list, has a top 5% at over $200,000/year. That's ~150,000 people in households who can comfortably afford a nice new EV, in just one small, poor state.
The states defined by the Census Bureau as being in "the midwest" (a subset of "flyover states") contain about 70 million people. The top 5% would be 3.5 million people who can afford a nice new EV. And this is conservative: someone in the top 6% can probably afford one too, but I'm not counting them, and there's plenty of "flyover state" territory beyond the midwest.
California is big enough and rich enough to have a huge amount of market power. But it's not so big and rich that it makes 100+ million Americans in the middle of the country completely irrelevant and ignorable.
Los Alamos, in New Mexico :)
Seriously though, everywhere I've lived there have been at least some doctors, dentists, college professors, business owners and suchlike; even Mississippi has hospitals, or so I'm told.
Sure, I know and admit these people exist. I did extensive market research on the US EV TAM before being a late private early public investor in Tesla (~<$20/share), riding in the first Roadster to evaluate the product, etc, and even with updated models to account for socioeconomic strata that continues to bifurcate, I believe my thesis holds around who and who cannot to afford to buy new vehicles at current price levels (it’s definitely gotten worse than 15 years ago, for gestures broadly at everything reasons). I’m saying, broadly speaking, all of the purchasing power is mostly in urban areas, although there are some exceptions in the middle of nowhere as you commented. This does not mean we should leave Rural America out in the cold.
Fundamentally, if we expect Rural America to buy affordable EVs (which, imho, they will need to do, and we should crank on policy to achieve), someone will have to force them to be affordable. Allow cheap, high quality Chinese imports, or nationalize an automaker as they approach failure. But right now, Rural America is captive to a parasite US auto industry profitmaxxing by minimizing production and maxing their profits, protected by tariffs. You cannot compel them to make affordable cars currently, but if you don’t, Rural America is fucked.
“You can just do things.”
(no current TSLA exposure, out long ago around “420 funding secured,” but still own a handful of Teslas out of sentimental reasons)
We absolutely should not go down the road of nationalizing companies and means of production. The government already has too much influence and control over our lives, we don't need them taking even more by using their power to gobble up failing companies.
We should watch how poorly its going trying to have NYC own something as simple as a few grocery stores. If the government is stepping in to make things cheaper they're destroying competition in the entire industry. They either inadvertently end up owning the entire industry by driving out all privately owned companies, or they subsidize those private companies so they can compete with the state owned ones.
This is an opinion. Many people have opinions. Test it in the current sociopolitical forward curve. Obama nationalized GM, to great success, and he was a centrist (very mid in my opinion, but a statesmen with tacit, so respect where due). 100+ Democratic Socialists were elected in midterm elections. Therefore, I think forward looking, the appetite for this goes up overtime. Shareholder rights and cap tables are simply shared delusions. The shared delusion can change, when needed.
Mamdani has a ~70% approval rating, and a long list of wins, New York City is doing phenomenal. There is strong evidence this was a contributing factor in more democratic socialist being elected across the country (“Mamdani Effect”), including the mayor of LA. If you think it isn’t, well, you’re ignoring reality. That’s a choice. Do so at your own peril.
In this specific context around auto manufacturing, it is clear there is no competition, and US tariff policy is keeping competition out to benefit legacy auto management and their shareholders. We could flip the switch on tariff policy, and they would immediately have competition, but they can’t handle it. The evidence is clear they are already doing poorly for the US consumer, and they have no intentions to change.
https://newrepublic.com/post/217572/dsa-candidates-won-elect...
Old people, fond of capitalism, keep dying every day, and young people who believe in socialism keep entering the electorate. Only time will tell, but rough trajectory is clear.
>because we should be optimizing for affordable zero emission mobility for all, imho
Cool, build rail and solar.
That’s just what we need: more subsidies to Elon Musk via federal EV tax credits.
Limit subsidies to vehicles that are no more expensive than $25k after subsidies. Make them build cars like BYD, with sub 4% margins. No subsidies for Tesla, they had their chance. He can find a new grift. It’s time to focus on people who actually build, not those who use theatrics to inflate silly capital market numbers for power and status.
To be fair an absolute amount already does that. $6k less is nice for a Mercedes CLA (~$55k), but there's a reason you can't buy a Hyundai Inster ($20k) and get it within a year.
> Two years of wasted time
Try two generations. I think it was obvious since the oil shocks that fossil fuels were not a good bedrock of the economy.
It's interesting to try to work out what the civ-style "dependency tree" of viable electric cars has been. It requires at the bare minimum high energy density light batteries, which were a spinoff of the cellphone revolution. As well as high efficiency digital power control, which while not impossible in 1970 would have been larger and heavier without modern SiC semiconductors.
Solar panels are an even more remarkable example of compounding a thousand different 1% improvements.
>Solar panels are an even more remarkable example of compounding a thousand different 1% improvements.
But they aren't really. In terms of efficiency, a 2x increase is a lot yes but the thing that has finally made them really viable is simply the cost dropping like a rock.
I don't care if I have to buy 2x as many solar panels when they cost as much as a fence post.
That cost reduction was entirely investment into production capacity. None of that couldn't have been accomplished decades ago.
That's the saddest part. If we had been adults in the 70s, we could already be done the green revolution basically. We could have seriously prevented global warming.
But a bunch of idiots rejected that and instead voted for people who doubled down on fucking up the middle east and burning liquids.
I interpreted the "1% improvements" to be exactly that effect of cost dropping like a rock (economic efficiency), not about the energy conversion efficiency.
PV entrepreneurs are the real heroes of the climate movement, IMHO. They figured out markets that would have enough demand to push forward with developing the tech. Germany's government is a major hero too, they pushed the tech forward so far at a crucial time. Then China took up the mantle.
Both supply and demand need to build together for the industry to grow. Government subsidies played a huge role in accelerating this, and will have paid for themselves so many times over. We're going to live in a world of super-cheap technology thanks to the modest tax-cut-based investments of governments the world over.
It does suck that so many powerful people were against the obvious-in-retrospect good idea of solar PV, but I'd love to focus on all the heroes that pushed through anyway and made it happen. They deserve a lot of thanks!
The real heroes are still the boots on the ground climate/green/anti-nuclear movements of multiple decades that enabled the parties to be voted into power, that set up the subsidies which gave entrepreneurs an actual market, initial funding, public research to use and planning security.
As you said, subsidies played a huge role. Look at the timeline when Germany and then Spain set up their subsidies and the following ramp up in PV production.
Sure, it was an idea at the right time, but the right time needed decades of political groundwork.
While the entrepreneurs deserve some credit, they generally got cash. The movements got massive backlash by conservatives and some got terrorism charges for protesting non-violently.
Well, perhaps, but the time for the followers in the field to push on EV manufacturing capability has been the past 5-10 years. And the US majors are all followers, not leaders. About two years ago they all put out press releases saying "we are not seeing EV sales so we are pulling back on manufacturing" meaning "we couldn't figure it out and are scared so we are abandoning our future."
With the strangle hold that these industries have on getting the government to bail them out, we are in a really bad position on the national level. We have let bad politics and weak management override good economic decision making.
Full disclosure: I have been driving an EV for almost a decade. I use an e-bike too. Electric commuting is brilliant. I'm glad for the sake of air quality that EVs and e-bikes exist and are increasingly popular.
That said — let's be realistic and dispassionate.
> There needs to be some creative destruction, ruthless culling of the least efficient manufacturers, so that their best workers can go to the better manufacturers, if the US is ever going to be a top tier car manufacturer again.
Inflicting job losses at that scale is not going to happen. US protectionism (a euphemism for ahem current federal initiatives) is alive and well. The legacy US auto makers have a huge domestic market and their survival is a primary motive for the US trade/tariff war. (Does the thoroughly corrupt administration face any comeuppance? That is a different discussion.)
The lack of EVs has not been a pivotal concern of voters. US voters want cheap fuel. Affordability was a fundamental concern for voters. The mid-term election result is not about loftier environmental goals.
> Their bad leadership and overall inefficiency
Yes, "an American vehicle" is known for grotesque size and high cost of maintenance. And now after two years of a despicable administration, "an American vehicle" is also a Trump-Miller-Hegseth-Bessent-Lutnick-Musk-*.arsehole symbol.
Even so, Tesla sales success is real, domestic and abroad. People who can afford them buy them.
> - Chinese EVs are dominating every market outside the US.
Not so in Europe, where the top 10 EVs sold in 2025 [1] has not a single Chinese car.
[1] https://autorai.nl/tesla-van-de-troon-gestoten-als-populairs...
Chinese EV have heavy import taxes in the EU. Also in France, (I don’t know in other countries), you get more subvention when buying an EU-made EV. This heavily distorts the market to try to save VW and friends.
I see sources saying BYD sold 187,657 vehicles in Europe in 2025, and MG sold 307,812. Interesting.
Your source only says: “Top 5 best-selling EV brands in Europe in 2025 Volkswagen – 274.417 (+56%) Tesla – 238.765 (-27%) BMW – 193.186 (+15%) Skoda – 172.100 (+117%) Audi – 153.848 (+51%)”
BYD sells a lot of hybrids rather than BEVs fyi. I believe its the majority of their sales maybe?
Of course, because the agreement between the European Union and Chinese limits battery electric vehicles, but does not limit hybrids the same way… which I think speaks again to the ability of the different manufacturers to compete on a “fair” basis
Correction: the European Union imposed additional tariffs (up to 35%) on Chinese-made battery-electric vehicles, while conventional hybrids and plug-in hybrids were exempt from those additional tariffs, giving Chinese manufacturers an incentive to shift toward hybrid sales.
How long until they are devoured by the Chinese? Geely already owns Volvo.
Things have changed a lot since 2025. In fact in October BYD sold a ton of cars in Europe.
I think they have a future as a "normal" car company, but in order to do that they'd have to manage to deliver a new "normal car" model at some point, and accept normal stock prices.
That EV market share direction in the US, though .. really bad compared to non-petrostates (except Norway)
They’ve never been a normal car company. And that’s the problem.
They don’t do a good job at the car company part. They make nice cars, but the company part has issues. Quick example… I was very happy to drive a model 3 for many years. But the constant changes in price of their new cars destroyed any resale value mine had. Every time Tesla was having a bad quarter, the value of my car dropped. That’s not the way to get me to buy another one.
There are certainly other areas where they could improve too. But my point being - they’ve never been all that good at (or interested in) what it takes to drive long term success in selling cars. It’s just too long of a time horizon for them.
I never understood why people care about "resale value" of a car. I buy a car to drive it until it's done. I don't buy a gaming PC and worry about resale value, or a polo, or sneakers, or a nice mop. I buy stuff to use it.
Not that you’re the only one deciding when you’re done with the car. I’ve had the misfortune of getting in an accident and having a car totaled, at which time the insurance company will give you something like the value of the car at that time. If all else is equal and you’re choosing between two cars, you might want to opt for the one that retains value better.
I don’t know that you have to agree with typical consumer behavior to accept it as a reality, though. And resale value does matter to people who don’t drive cars into the ground, because trade-in value affects your purchasing power when you do decide to get a new one.
And even if you do keep cars indefinitely, it can still be an important consideration because it affects how things work out when you need to make an insurance claim. It means your car is both more likely to be declared a total loss and more likely to be worth less than what you still owe for it when it does get totaled.
Because if you desperately need cash, you can trade in the $80,000 luxury suv for a $20,000 subcompact, and use that cash to pay rent and for food. It's a depreciating asset and sometimes a money sink, sure, but if you live somewhere you need a car anyway, some people choose the more expensive ones.
That's... Financially irresponsible. You build your cushion in non-depreciating assets. If you are approaching situation where you would desperately need cash, you prepare for in some way different from buying luxurious suvs.
There are some situations that can wipe your savings - even large ones - really quickly (e.g. cancer).
Wouldn't healthcare cover a large portion of these kinds of expenses? At least they do in quite a few parts of the world.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. Most parts of the world yes. Somehow in the US, no. My sister had cancer for 7 years and I think I probably paid close to $50k on her treatments because the treatments her insurance covered weren't sufficient so we had to take her to an out of network clinic (Mayo).
The "most parts of the world yes" is absolutely not true. Unless you consider G20 countries to be most of the world. In most parts of the world if you want actual state of the art treatment, you've got to pay from your own pocket.
It seems strange to me not to. Because if you don't sell it, you're basically the kind of person who drives a new car one day, but ten years later, you're a person who drives a ten year old car?
Speaking as someone who mostly drives 20 year old cars.
I get your point. But look at this from Tesla’s point of view. Why should they care? They will want to sell as many cars as possible. If they sell me a car, that’s just one sale. However, every marketing book will tell you that it’s easier to sell to an existing customer.
If my car (an asset) has more resale value, I’m more likely to sell it to buy a new one. They should be trying to protect my resale value — if they want me as a repeat customer. Even if I want to buy another Tesla, if my resale value isn’t high, I’d wait longer to buy a new one.
Or, what I’m leasing the car (reasonable for an EV and used to have better tax incentives)? If the end of lease value is low, I have to spend more on the depreciation over the lease. That makes my monthly payment higher. Instead, if the end of lease value is higher, I have a lower monthly payment and I’m more likely to buy the car.
Either way, Tesla was good at selling one car. They need to get better at selling the second or third one.
If Tesla is dropping the price of their cars, then that means you can buy a new car for less. It makes no sense to want to overpay for a consumable item at time t+1, regardless of what you paid at time t.
If cost(t) >> cost(t+1), then I'm not going to be able to afford to buy that new car. I'm going to be underwater on that deal. That also means that Tesla has one fewer possible sale. I'm not overpaying for a new car, which means that if Tesla would like to have more sales, they should try to keep their prices more constant.
Remember, this is from the Tesla point of view... and it's a long time-horizon perspective. It's a much easier decision from the customer's point of view.
(And there are other ways for companies to incentivize sales with discounts and promotions that don't obviously impact the "value" of the car).
Because an old car often costs more in maintenance. It's best to re-sale it before it gives you too much trouble. Basically, you can have a more reliable car with no extra cost. And some people like modern and new cars and upgrade every few years.
For a lot of people cars are less a way to get from point A to point B and more of a status symbol, so they like to drive a new or at least newer car.
Personally I'm with you. I love my car because its exactly enough car for my needs. I bought it new (in 2016) and I never want to sell it. I'd get so much less (or more to the point I can't buy a new car) for the same money I spent on it.
pretty sure they average out to holding their value better or at worst in line with other brands
The problem is that transition would require a ~95% drop in stock price, and the company isn't going to survive that.
GM - $74.5B market cap (6.2M cars sold annually)
Ford - $50.2B (4.6M)
Volkswagen - $40B (9M)
BYD - $100B (4.6M)
Toyota - $256B (11.3M)
Hyundai - $57B (7.3M)
Tesla - $1.4T (1.6M)
The numbers simply don't add up.
A stock drop does not in and of itself kill a company which has positive cashflow, although it may give the executives heart attacks and leave it vulnerable to takeover.
If the company keeps the startup structure of paying employees in stock options and growing by VC money into the several billions value, yes a stock drop can kill it in and of itself.
1. compare debt, tesla is cash rich while old OEMs are saddled with debt
2. compare growth opportunities, ie https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi - rollout is going well, and every cybercab produced nets what ? $25k/year? $75k/year? vs $5-8k once per car sold?
I don't like Musk, but this is the correct answer. So many people are trying to fit Tesla into the old OEM box but they are not a car company. They are a technology company that sells cars.
I don't know if robotaxi will take off, but if it does, it massively undercuts Waymo because the vehicles are just so much cheaper to make and are made in house.
Just like WeWork is not a real estate company, but a technology company that does real estate. They had nearly $0.5m net income in 2016, but presumably the future is bright.
Telsa/Musk is a cult of personality. SpaceX's valuation makes no sense either.
On that basis if Musk overdoses on ketamine or something then 95% devaluation may well happen.
Musk has said Tesla's future is cybercabs and robots, not a normal car company.
Yeah, by basically ignoring regulation. That's going to be a lot tougher since the midterm results. The government will no longer be giving him any easy passes.
Oooh, normal cars. Now there's a concept. Can we get a real EV minivan? Not a gimmick like the Buzz. I've got kids and go on long road trips to visit family. Seats, cargo capacity, range, and 800V charging speed.
Closest thing is like the Ioniq 9 but the cargo space really sucks.
For a polished product that ticks all the boxes, I would pay a premium for this.
You might need to move to China for that.
XPeng X9 - Seven seats, 800V charging, and a third row that folds into the floor. The long-range version has 382 miles WLTP range and charges 10–80% in approximately 12 minutes under ideal conditions.
Li Auto MEGA - Seven seats, 800V architecture, 441 miles CLTC range, and manufacturer-claimed charging that adds 311 miles of CLTC range in 10 minutes. Li Auto says its trunk holds four 28-inch suitcases with all seven seats occupied.
Zeekr 009 - Seven-seat versions, up to 460 miles CLTC range, and 10–80% charging in as little as 10 minutes on the upgraded 900V model. Very luxurious, though some versions offer less rear cargo space.
Denza D9 EV - Seven seats, 115-kWh battery, up to 497 miles CLTC range, and BYD Flash Charging claims of 10–70% in five minutes using compatible ultra-high-power chargers.
China is years ahead of the West (EU/US) in terms of EVs.
The cars you describe are quite popular in HK, and typically family cars chauffeured by, well, a chauffeur. Carries a family of 4 plus a maid or two.
Surely chauffeurs will be replaced by autonomous driving modes soon? Will HK experience gridlock as all the robo cars take laps around the block?
I'm sorry not everyone is swayed by LED lighting and plastic cupholders in fake chrome.
Lucid Gravity. We just picked one up after cross shopping an R1S. Its been solid so far the interior packaging is impressive. I was sold after driving it. Although it is more of a wagon than anything.
I've been seesawing between R1S and Gravity. Granted, I cant afford either right now, but planning for the future. But it made me realize : I don't know if I trust that Lucid will be around in a few years. Rivian seems more stable. And I don't want to buy a $100k car from a company that may not be around in a few years because then I basically have a brick.
A Mercedes VLE maybe? It ticks all the boxes incl premium price.
Doesn't have the doors that go __-----
Wikipedia maintains a list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
I live in SE Asia and travel regularly for work in this region. Chinese EV's are everywhere and completely dominate the market, except perhaps a few fans in Singapore, it's living driving in the future (Denza D9 anyone?) compared to Western countries (tech-wise, not the questionable production and market flooding)
> unsupervised autopilot
They are running a fleet of taxis around the Bay Area. It's kind of scary because they aren't that safe, given the lack of LIDAR. But they are doing it anyway.
They all have someone behind the wheel. Tesla doesn't have a driverless permit in the Bay Area.
Yes, they have safety drivers for now, but they are still running them as an autonomous fleet.
And also, they are driving fully autonomous in Texas and Florida.
> for now
So let me guess, fully unsupervised self driving is rolling out "next year" right?
They have more fully unsupervised robotaxis riding around Texas than Waymo.
https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety
That link doesn’t say how many, and it doesn’t differentiate between when there is a driver in the car or not
> Miles Driven Autonomously
In the Bay Area they have human supervisors but in Austin they are autonomous.
Is there data to suggest they are unsafe in Austin - as in less safe than a human?
They're working hard to not release any of their safety data, unlike all the other autonomous car companies.
wrong
https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety
I’m not sure these self-reported numbers are trustworthy considering they report “0 robotaxi injuries” when a cursory Google search turns up this article claiming 249 Roboxtaxi accidents in Austin and at least two injuries that required hospital visits. Which is at least two more than “0 injuries”.
Those were Waymos…
Yes. My mistake. It seems that the article is grouping all autonomous taxis under the title of "Cybertaxi", which is where I was confused.
That's what Elon wants you to think...
What makes you say they aren't safe? The numbers say they are about 4-6x safer than a car with a human driver.
What numbers?
these https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety
We know this data is trustworthy because Musk and his companies would never ever ever lie about anything important.
Ah you’re right it’s not like there’s any media scrutiny of robotaxis
Then share those instead of the same biased blog post.
Photogrammetry + AI has developed to the degree, that there are 3D scanning apps on iPhone that don't even use the Lidar when available, so you can certainly make do without and get comparable results.
https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety
Biased source.
What would an unbiased source be for this data?
A blog post from the company definitely ain't it.
Sorry, I meant the opposite. What would a good source be? Isn't Tesla the primary source of such data? Where else would you expect it to come from?
Tesla can not be impartial about itself.
A source that doesn't have an incentive to lie about the topic...
A fleet of hundreds of cars, right? Maybe even thousands including Austin? All with no LIDAR, and operating perhaps up to 18 hours a day?
So then where are all the horrible accidents if they're not safe?
Why do you assume lidar is must for safety. So far the Tesla auto pilot record is better than human drivers
Because less then ideal conditions for vision exist? Heavy snow/rain/fog, sun shining into cameras at dawn and dusk etc
It’s not hard to be better then an average human generally, the issue is liability as when a driverless taxi hits or hurts someone you can’t just go “but we are safer then human drivers!”
I don’t see why it’s scary. Most cars on the road have a driver and no LIDAR. The cybercab is no different.
They intend to take the driver out, and they are already running them without a driver in Texas and Florida.
Yep, very safely https://www.tesla.com/robotaxi/safety
Thank goodness we definitely know we can trust the data in that link /s
gov reports seem to agree so unless you have any data to deny this just take the L
Share those reports then.
You mean the government that Elon Musk gutted with DOGE?
https://www.newsweek.com/doge-cuts-watchdogs-investigating-s...
> Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly cut 30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) workers in February, disproportionately affecting regulators tasked with assessing self-driving vehicle risks, according to a Financial Times report.
For now, their goal is to have no driver and no lidar. That is what said the commenter is scared of.
It's more likely he'll merge Tesla with SpaceX.
I get all my news from Matt Levine and this is what he keeps saying.
> - EV sales share in the US is down to 6% (and falling every quarter).
Wow. Compare with 41% in France (in October), 37% in Germany, 60% in China.
The incentive to switch is a little lower with actually affordable gasoline. In Europe, gas prices are incredibly high right now and will probably never go down again, so it’s natural for the market to drift towards electronic.
From what I've heard, the autopilot is very good and getting better. It is hard to distinguish the haters from the hype.
It's actually easy. The media would love to print stories about robotaxis having chaotic accidents, so you can trust that you will hear about it if that starts happening.
You might be waiting a while, though... If it's not happening now, it's unlikely to ever happen.
I rented one for a road trip. It was nothing short of magical. Scary to give it control. And I can believe there are edge cases … but it’s real.
I’d guess that it’s going to take a while to catch up because the real world data is the moat. Maybe if someone partners with Waymo but the price point will be higher.
The thing that gives me pause about buying one is: what happens if the company loses interest? Is it like “owning” a game after the company shuts down the servers?
I’ve heard the same but I think the question is “is autopilot worth basing your entire car purchase around it?” and “will competitors be able to replicate Tesla’s success?”.
If autopilot is basically the only thing Tesla has going for it then they’ve got a risky path ahead of them.
From personal experience: "yes, no question", and "maybe though it'll take a long time and a lot of compute and training data". The day level 3 automation (basically what Tesla's FSD is, even though it's classified as level 2) comes to some other car, I'll strongly consider switching.
Maybe a stock crash and total failure of Tesla will be the best thing that happens. The US government (assuming us citizens can somehow continue to claw it back) or some benevolent entity can buy the ML models for cheap and open source them. It's really their only truly valuable, resilient asset, IMO.
> “is autopilot worth basing your entire car purchase around it?”
Unsupervised FSD is, yes.
> and “will competitors be able to replicate Tesla’s success?”.
I wouldn't bet on a big auto-maker, personally. But maybe they can outsource it. And...well, AI. Things are moving fast. But I think the moat can hold for a while.
For me, even now it's worth basing the entire purchase around it. Competitor auto-makers, if they executed perfectly, would need 4-5 years to get to catch up to where Tesla is now in autonomous driving; so probably a lot longer in reality.
I loved how the Cybertruck looked but when I test-drove it, I realized it wasn't for me. Tesla can now do a Rivian R1 or Hyundai Palissade type design and do well. But they will prioritize the cab since they got it to the current scale pretty quickly and it will be a money printer for them.
> *”will competitors be able to replicate Tesla’s success?”
Tech first companies like Waymo: yes, clearly.
OEM US automakers? Not a chance, not ever. They can’t do a simple infotainment system to save themselves. If they want to “auto” driving, they’re going to license it from some other company.
I have it. It is shockingly good but not as good as a person. And anything below 100% is dangerous.
For instance, how it detects pedestrians. Ive had instances where someone is looking to cross, the FSD either ignores them completely or it slows down a little, baits them into going forward, then resumes running them over. It detects car to car problems very well but doesn’t try to interpret pedestrian’s intent outside of the actual road.
I, and many others, could never go back to a vehicle that doesn't have this level of self-driving. It really is such an improvement it's crazy how little people who haven't experienced it understand.
> unsupervised autopilot
Robotaxi is live in some markets. I've used it twice here in Houston. Works quite well.
I was under the impression there were teleoperators for their taxi fleet: https://electrek.co/2025/05/16/tesla-robotaxi-fleet-powered-...
This article just says that teleoperators had remote access to the first 20 cars when they were rolled out ~17 months ago. It doesn't support a claim that the fleet is currently using teleoperators, let alone relying on them more broadly as you seem to imply.
> Recently, Jonas met with Tesla with some clients and released a new note that he hinted to be based on what he learned from Tesla during the meeting. He claims that the planned “robotaxi” rollout in Austin next month [June '25] is going to use “plenty of tele ops to ensure safety levels”: Austin’s a ‘go’ but fleet size will be low. Think 10 to 20 cars. Public roads. Invite only. Plenty of tele ops to ensure safety levels (“we can’t screw up”). Still waiting for a date. ‘Tele ops’ stands for teleoperations, meaning that Tesla employees will be able to remotely access Tesla’s vehicles and operate them in some capacity.
>The stock is still surviving on Elon hype
I wish people would stop saying stood things like this and consider the structural and technical reasons why TSLA share values might be disconnected from the company's performance. (No one wants to do that because it might point to misbehavior by market participants.)
Hundreds of billions of dollars do not move because of "hype"; someone, somewhere is making a calculated decision.
I’d say Tesla’s charging network remains a very strong suit for them. Problem is it’s nowhere near strong enough to justify their current valuation. But we’ve been saying this for years and the stock price still stays irrationally high.
Do you ever see any legacy American car companies getting close to what Tesla can do, even with a 10yr timeline?
Well it depends on what you are saying "can do". Ford and GM already outsell Tesla on volume by 4-5x each. There is some portion of the population that will spend more for an EV but that is a tapped and declining market. Chinese manufacturers are selling attractive EVs at a cost lower than their ICE counterpart - not higher. But they are cut out of the USA market. Now we can say that Tesla is leading in autopilot and other things like that but apparently that is not translating to growing sales. They have a stagnant lineup of models that people would actually buy.
> Manufacturing costs haven't come down
That’s not true in general but the Cybertruck in particular is stupid expensive to manufacture. And then there’s the 4680 fiasco. I think it’s more of a personal political design than a realistic product.
It’s slightly amazing how persistent the Elon hype is. Quite a few of those problems are at least partially due to own goals that Musk himself has been scoring.
I realize that some of it is just a cult of personality, and that part will be unusually sticky because of things like cognitive dissonance. But that can’t be all of it. My next best guess is a bunch of it is a whole bunch of institutional investors are privately thinking these companies are way too risky, but keep it to themselves because it’s not their money they’re putting on the line and taking a contrarian position would risk angering a presumably vocal subset of clients of unknown size. Which isn’t a great way to make yourself popular with your boss.
If he had delivered Neuralink alone, the hype would be valid. Doing that...plus SpaceX, Tesla, Boring, etc.
The biggest knock on him is that he says something will happen at a certain time and then it comes later. Even the sub-$30k EV. Cybercabs cost < $30k.
What "hype" has been delivered by the Boring Company?
No, the biggest knock against him is how he caused hundreds of thousands of people in the third world to die from sudden cutoff of food and medicine. This will never be forgiven or forgotten.
No seriously, this actually didn't happen. That one website is a "model" and simply doesn't account at all for the fact that most of the critical parts of USAID were picked up by other US aid programs.
It looked like it might happen for a bit! And it is quite bad of course that that could have happened! But it didn't.
Yes, it fucking happened. These people have names and reputable journalists on the ground talked to the grieving family members of the deceased: https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2026/07/how-pulitzer-final..., https://www.propublica.org/series/the-end-of-aid
I have read multiple articles to the same effect from other publications. Aid got cut off instantly (to the extent that supply trucks were left without gasoline), people could not access medicine and food that they needed to survive, and then they died, horribly. That was just ground zero.
Get out of your bubble before you destroy yourself.
Yes, people died. People did not die at the scale reported.
edit: Okay fine, I'll rephrase it. There is no convincing evidence at this point of mass deaths. It's entirely speculative on the basis, frankly, of assumptions we know to be wrong.
Seriously my dude, this is not a hill to die on.
That did not happen…
It did. Go ask your LLMs about it if you don't believe me.
Confirmed. Those numbers come from models and estimates but are not supported by anything that actually happened on the ground. Funding was transferred to the state department.
It looks like you're pretty bad at prompting. Here, let me help you out: https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2026/07/how-pulitzer-final...
(I literally just asked Gemini "how many deaths are verified to be caused directly by the sudden shutdown of usaid?" to find some articles I had read featuring actual journalists tracking deaths on the ground.)
This is literally an interview that doesn't even list a number with a source. The one number it lists is a self-declared estimate of 700k deaths of which it sources three (3).
Trump did that, not Elon. The president is the only one with the power to cut that aid. Sure, he was the "face" of it but Trump signed the EOs
Elon proposed it and implemented it. Yes, Trump signed off on it but by that logic no one in the Trump administration is guilty of anything other than Trump himself, which we all know is not true.
Elon actually bragged about destroying USAID on Twitter.
"We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could gone to some great parties. Did that instead."
This is the richest man in the world being GLEEFUL abut destroying an organization that helps the poorest people in the world. Musk is basically Ebenezer Scrooge.
In an interview when asked about it he insisted their was vast amounts of fraud in USAID.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1886307316804263979?lang=en
USAID was a pretty evil organization that was founded and used to bribe warring organizations under the guise of humanitarianism.
Whatever USAID is guilty of, it is indisputable that thousands of people died from aid being suddenly cut off without a tapering period. You can find many news articles talking to people on the ground that confirm this.
What does "bribe warring organizations " even mean?
The money was ostensibly used for noble purposes but usually ended up funding unsavory characters or organizations that are actually at cross purposes with stated US goals. A lot of humanitarian aid we send to the Middle Eastfor example, ends up in the hands of terrorists.[1]
1. https://oig.usaid.gov/node/7283
> A lot of humanitarian aid ... ends up in the hands of terrorists.
Which you "prove" by linking to a story how $9 million was "diverted" (although the person responsible was caught and charged) out of a total of $12 billion.
That's 9 parts of 12 thousand or 0.075% that you are describing as "a lot".
If you think that is the only instance of fraud you are deluding yourself.
Please provide more examples.
It's your story - it's up to you to demonstrate the scale of loss.
So far all you have demonstrated is that US AID loses less aid money than CBH loses in grain to parrots each year.
If you think think that millions of tonnes of grain should be not transported because less than 1% is eaten by parrots then you're committed to starving millions of food.
MrBeast did more for people in Africa than USAID ever did. The only thing USAID tents were used for was filming ISIS videos.
The man who fires the gun is just as culpable as the man who makes the plan. And boy, did Musk enjoy playing executioner! He acted with gleeful, reckless abandon and gloated about “taking a chainsaw” to USAID. And as I recall, they shoved Rubio in front of the cameras only after Musk's illegal rampage already happened, as a sort of fig leaf.
Most people don't even pay attention to what he announces, myself included. It happens if/when it happens. I got on a plane and had fast internet for the first time thanks to Starlink, that's great. But when someone at work is telling me about his "FSD" car, sure, show me it going around the block while we sit in the back.
All of those are debatable at best from a business perspective.
Neuralink is still in clinical trials. So it hasn’t actually been delivered yet, and there’s no actual guarantee that it will be.
From a certain perspective, SpaceX’s launch business was an effort to create an airline in space. And that’s exactly what they did, profit margins and all.
Starlink is looking good right now, but its profits seem to be heavily propped up by crony capitalism, a system that the US electorate arguably voted against in a big way earlier this week. Plus, their up-and-coming competition was recently handed a gift beyond their wildest dreams, courtesy of Elon Musk, in the form of a clear demonstration that dependence on SpaceX is a major strategic liability.
The AI bit, well… yeah.
Tesla has had some past greatness, but, as I mentioned above, all of their recent misfortune is wholly or partially the fault of its own CEO. Worse, many of the minds more directly behind past successes have left the company. Investment is about future prospects, not past glory.
Boring Company’s greatest commercial success thus far is the Las Vegas loop. That’s all that needs to be said about that.
Neuralink
Speech Restoration - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2100342084011978896
Controlling a Power Wheelchair - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2080405463649100114
Playing Games - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2057943187746849002
Using a computer & drawing a signature - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2057222230807830948
Painting with a Robotic Arm - https://x.com/neuralink/status/2055351348728668340
But again, from a business perspective this is all just PoCs, not products delivered to market. There’s a whole gauntlet, including a very difficult and expensive regulatory approval process, between all of it and a successfully delivered product that can start generating ROI.
Hah, and what, pray tell, has bunderbunder done to so casually dismiss the thousands of engineers pushing the boundaries of physics in almost every single one of those companies?
You have completely missed the point. I never said a single word about whether or not engineers have engineered. I’m talking partially about whether Musk’s companies merit the valuations they’re getting, and partially about whether the investor goodwill that Musk’s companies receive is merited.
Furthermore, what exactly are you getting at, anyway? If I just uncritically gave all my money to anyone who I think might have hired people who are better at mechanical engineering than I am, then I would have no money.
> and then it comes later
Ignoring dozens if not hundreds of promises that never came. You can't wait forever.
You can in fact wait forever if you're not investing money in the company
What did useful thing has Boring done?
> a whole bunch of institutional investors are privately thinking these companies are way too risky
What's that saying? "In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone"?
There’s a severe lack of focus and the only endgame that still makes sense to me for Tesla is basically turning into a cab service like Waymo. Perhaps you own the car perhaps not.
> Federal EV tax credits are over.
It's crazy that Democrats were the pro EV party because of the environment, and half the reason liberals bought Teslas, but Elon's white supremacy overrode his business interests and he went all in with the fossil fuel party. And Tesla shareholders rewarded him with an insane pay package for this genius move.
Democrats abandoned the environment in lieu of this weird obsession with socialism- starting with the unions. First, Tesla was repeatedly snubbed when the Biden administration poured billions into every other car company to make them produce EVs- gleefully declaring GMC of all companies to be the Leader of EVs. Then, the COVID situation where the local staff member in government made it illegal for Tesla, and only Tesla, to continue operating. That's when Elon finally got the message that the Democratic party had abandoned him, and cared more about raising money than any kind of environment or progress. He then went on twitter, called it out, and then the entire democratic party reformed under the banner of Anti-Elon (since the whole trans and immigrant stuff was settling down a bit too much to encourage passion).
I think he had his feelings hurt by these snubs, but to align with the anti-immigrant side was odd. I think that, plus he understood the Republican "money in my pocket over all" values rather than a more complex "be a decent person" valueset. The former was more clear than the latter, and clarity beats morality any day.
Oh yeah, he also made what - $500 billion dollars? - by aligning with corruption and cronyism.
edit - also, as I've become older, I find myself saying more and more that my dad was right. I guess he may have realized the same thing after he alienated his family. It turns out maybe there was some wisdom in the old emerald mine magnate papa (</s>) and any criticism of how workers are treated, or markets manipulated, or harm caused to millions - it is just woke haters.
It's hilarious to me when Democrats crash out over Elon's reliance on EV credits, as though acting on the incentives they created was a moral failure on his part.
The proliferation of over-the-top EVs around 2019-21, not just from Tesla, did make me think something was wack with the subsidies. Gas was insanely cheap for part of that too.
They already pivoted to AI.
He'll just fold Tesla into SpaceX to cover up the ashes.
This is the most realistic scenario. Hide the stock losses by folding it into SpaceX. Dare the US government to nationalize it. Walk away a “business martyr”.
Lol what ashes? Tesla has the best selling vehicle in America, only faces real competition from Google and China.
There is a world outside the US.
> It's hard to see where Tesla goes from here as a company.
Probably will get acquired by SpaceX to hide the poor financials
Federal EV tax credits are over partly by Elon's hand. Masterclass level foot-gunning.
And subsidies in California, which he hates, are responsible for an outsized part of sales.
He seems to suggest that the future is Cybercabs and Optimus.
But if Optimus ends up with a HW3 problem (current manufactured Optimus bots aren't autonomus yet because the software isn't finished) he'll have a pile of Cybertrucks and early-model Optimus units rotting in a field.
Personally, I just don't see it. If he merges Tesla and SpaceX it won't really be about cars or vehicle autonomy.
Their current stock valuation can't ride this uncertainty forever. At some point he has to have new products that work, no caveats.
He's also looking at an incoming congress that is going to give him a colonoscopy that he didn't ask for.
The only people I've seen driving cybertrucks tend to be asian or older white guys that likely think Elon is great. Yes, this is a generalization, but an observation over thousands of miles between the Bay Area and Vancouver, BC.
I think Tesla is in for more hurt over the coming years, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing in my opinion on how Musk has handled himself in the public arena with Tesla and Starlink.
Elon leaves the company, maybe they focus more on quality, good UX, and a lot of people not currently buying Teslas because they are owned by a nazi and have bad UX and quality issues might start.
He'll trigger the sale of Tesla to SpaceX so he can get his tranche before that happens.
Don't forget, they built a truck that's near impossible to sell outside the US due to the fact it's way too big and deadly for other road users.
Elon made this into something cool, but creating a whole model line for a single country is risky. Especially if that model is already in a small niche and has an incredibly controversial design.
Not sure why you didn't mention Elon Musk zeig heiling at the inauguration he helped buy which led to a mass boycott.
Also, the truck was ugly, awkward, and not good at being a truck.
Elon resigning from Tesla and just letting it run as a reasonable car company making just regular incremental quality and price and new model improvements on normal vehicles people want to drive could be the best thing for the company. The Model 3 is a huge success. That they didn't follow that up with just a regular pickup truck in a similar niche, and instead got distracted by this cybertruck nonsense is an indictment of Musk's poor leadership at this point.
They should just be the Toyota of EVs -- mass produce quality vehicles people want to drive -- instead he's trying to be Tony Stark and keep pumping it as a meme stock.
Tesla remains excellent at engineering and manufacturing. They need not seek the exotic.
He's a liability to that company, not an asset, at this point. And his name has become a brand liability.
The weird contradiction of musk is that his name is what’s propping up most of his companies/projects but his proximity to his companies is also a threat to them.
Only because the "product" has become the stock, not the cars.
If Musk left, the stock would crash. But the company would be profitable.
You’re right but so many companies are about the stock and not any sort of core product anymore. He’s got a very unique gravity well around him lol
You put it better than I could have.
It makes for an interesting argument why executive comp should be capped - so they can focus on the product as the product (to benefit consumers) instead of the stock as the product (to benefit execs especially in short term)
My wife took an overhyped Moonshot for a ride when she was on holiday in Texas last month and sent us all a video - just saying
Did it fly?
>The stock is still surviving on Elon hype but has been stagnant for 5 years.
People may actually start buying Teslas again if they're no longer associated with a fascist trillionaire. The number of "I bought this before Elon went crazy" bumper stickers is very high. The people who would buy an electric car are turned off by his association with the brand. He's more of an albatross on the brand than a hype machine.
Throwing his first-mover advantage into the dumpster to get in bed with the political party who despises not only his core customer base but the very premise of his business is forever baffling.
Hundreds of Cybercabs are driving around cities right now with no steering wheel or pedal making money and growing 20% a week, Model Y is the best selling car (of any type) in the planet. European sales are going through the roof, they are doubling production.
Cybertruck was a mistake but rest of the business is printing cash hand over fist.
> European sales are going through the roof
A side effect of Trump's war with Iran is that every country which doesn't have sufficient domestic oil production, which is most countries especially in Europe, has accelerated their EV transition. Buyers are grabbing every EV they can get their hands on, and yes Tesla are the leader there.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-electric-car-registratio...
"Tesla (TSLA.O), led the UK BEV market year-to-date, with registrations up 25.4% from a year earlier and a 9.53% market share South Korea's Kia (000270.KS), and China's BYD (002594.SZ), continued to compete for second place, with market shares of 6.9% and 6.8%, respectively"
The Kia model breakdown: https://www.kiapressoffice.com/releases/1975 (mostly Niro, now withdrawn, then EV6)
Maybe in the UK, but in the EU+UK Teslas (which are made in China and the EU) are falling behind GEELY, BYD, SAIC, and even Chery
https://www.reuters.com/business/tesla-registrations-surge-a...
That ain’t a good thing. Europe continues to deindustrialize themselves. How is that a good thing?
Do you know that Europe is not just the UK? How odd to present that quote to support your claim that Tesla leads in Europe.
It's actually 4th in ev sales in Europe.... https://cleantechnica.com/2026/10/03/europe-ev-sales-report-...
And that's when ranked by manufacturer, which is only slightly less arbitrary than by model as auto groups just use it for market segmentation. If you rank them as groups (e.g. VW group), then Tesla isn't even in the top 5.
If something is growing 20% a week, it should see more than 1,000,000% growth after 1 year. I call bullshit on this one.
https://robotaxitracker.com/cameras?kind=cybercab&metric=veh...
Ummm.. when normalized (per 1000 vehicles/sightings), there is 35-42% increase.
But that is over a baseline of 2-7 sightings.
There's a reason why we don't go all in on penny stocks when they go up 200% in value, you know.
Yeah, I'm not saying anything beyond the fact that they did indeed grow about 20% for the past handful of weeks.
> Model Y is the best selling car (of any type) in the planet.
Depends on the year. It and the RAV4 switch places now and then.
It's also a meaningless metric because most manufacturers sell multiple models of the same type. Toyota has Corolla, Prius, Camry, Crown, Mirai, Ativ, Century, Belta - all small-mid sized sedans. Add them up and they outsell every Tesla model put together.
BYD has 61 different models in its lineup compared to Tesla's 2.
Yes for example in 1955 it wasn't, the OP was suggesting Tesla is doing badly now.
> European sales are going through the roof, they are doubling production.
Only when compared to their recent record lows... the broader trend is still downwards. This is disingenuous. They are losing ground to other manufacturers in Europe
Also the Teslas that Europe is buying are made in China not the US.
The countries where EVs are increasing the most are those that have access to Chinese EVs.
> Also the Teslas that Europe is buying are made in China not the US.
They are primarily from Germany. There are some imports from China but they are subject to tariffs.
> Hundreds of Cybercabs are driving around cities right now with no steering wheel or pedal making money and growing 20% a week
Huh? The cybercab with no steering wheel is only operating in Austin, in tiny premapped areas. There are 45 registered in Texas, and they have only been operating since September.
This isn’t Twitter, you’re generally expected to at least attempt to provide factual information here.
https://www.fox7austin.com/news/tesla-launches-cybercab-aust...
“Printing money hand over fist” is an interesting way to frame the dramatic drop in their margin on every vehicle sold.
Incorrect
About as many cybercabs driving around as Waymo, and this doesn't count the Model Y Robotaxis:
https://robotaxitracker.com/cameras?kind=cybercab&metric=veh...
~300 cybercabs in service in TX
I've seen the golden Cybercabs rolling around in DFW. Not sure if they're actually accepting fares or not. I know they offer services with a Model Y operating "autonomously", I know in the past they had chaser cars monitoring but I've heard they've stopped that these days.
FWIW they have Cybercabs rolling around many places right now even in boring suburbs- they've all got drivers except for some very select areas (e.g. Bay Area)
Not sure what numbers you are looking at but Tesla vehicle sales peaked in 2023 and have been falling every year since then. The "sales going through the roof" narrative exists on Twitter, not their balance sheet.
Poe's Law is still in effect. You have to add an /s at the end.
- When it released, people were lighting Tesla stores and charging stations on fire, flipping off drivers, spitting on the cars even when kids were inside, and defacing them. This was generally supported, and for some reason a lot of people sided with the vandals in an effort to still be considered a Democrat and show hatred of The Other Side.
It's still week 1 and we're already in full on persecuted mode?
Never stopped.
I’m glad to see you don’t dispute any of the facts he presented. The usual playbook is, “that never happened!”
Engaging the delusions only serves to strengthen them, I've learned not to entertain those factless fantasies.
Elon's honestly their biggest problem. Can't focus on finishing one thing to save his life and alienated the shit out of the European market with his fascist beliefs.
https://bestsellingcarsblog.com/2026/10/finland-september-20...
Seems like your conclusions are wrong
From my perspective, owning a truck and SUV and using them differently for various use cases, the cybertruck is neither. So even if I ignore everything else I feel about it’s aesthetic, Musk, politics, etc. It simply does not serve many real world needs that I have. It put itself in a very narrow box of, only people that really like this quirky design and also like/feel indifferent to the tangential stuff will want to buy this truck. Oh, also you have to be able to afford it too. This is such a small addressable market for a vehicle to target. Was never going to work.
However, it provided content and distraction and kept the stock high longer than it should have and I feel like that’s what Musk continues to excel at.
I found out the same with pickup trucks generally.
I got one, years ago. The bed was not large enough to readily hold full sheets of plywood (the minivan I owned before could hold full sheets!). And yet, the truck was long such that parking, maneuvering in parking lots, etc, was a pain in the ass (here the minivan was about tied with the truck).
So sucked as a regular errand-car, sucked for hauling sheet goods.
(Sold it during the tail of Covid when used car prices were skyrocketing for whatever reason. Never again.)
Nailed it. I considered buying a truck for years, but the minivan has everything I want out of a vehicle. I'm so glad we got one. It's strictly better for hauling dimensional or ply, strictly better for long road trips, for gas mileage, etc. It even tows more than my jeep did, but not as much as a full size pickup. and it has a really nice reconfigurable roof rack, so adding a trip carrier on top is simple. Add to that the optional bench in back, the built in vacuum, the built in TV + entertainment, the full length moonroof, on and on.
It's a luxury vehicle that beats SUVs hands down, and most functions of urban trucks as well.
It just gets soccer mom vibes, so it's not $120,000
>It just gets soccer mom vibes, so it's not $120,000
The vehicle with soccer mom vibes may fit your use case better but that doesn't explain the cost difference. Mini vans are cheaper to manufacture. The frame, axles, brakes, engines, towing, payload hardware etc. are all lighter duty.
> The frame, axles, brakes, engines, towing, payload hardware etc. are all lighter duty.
I have 2 questions about this:
* are you actually, really, sure? (Is this hard data?)
* does it matter when it's never going to go off-road and rarely strained (e.g. for towing)?
Yes it's lighter duty parts. If you don't haul or tow, then there's no need for a truck.
Agree with you, but want to say trucks are really for towing. To haul you want a trailer.
For example the f150 is rated for 1.2 tons, the 250 1.3 to 1.8 depending on configuration. gotta go to f350 for an 8 ton configuration.
For people who don't think about this often, imagine four 200lb guys riding in the cab of the f150. It's already a third of it's payload capacity at that point. Can't fit too many bags of cement in after that.
Of course this is moot in comparison to a minivan which has a payload capacity of about 3/4 ton. You’ll be over capacity in the minivan if you have a 175lb person on each seat.
> Agree with you, but want to say trucks are really for towing. To haul you want a trailer.
> For example the f150 is rated for 1.2 tons, the 250 1.3 to 1.8 depending on configuration.
Now I'm really confused. My father's Citroën CX station wagon (built 1983) was rated to tow 1.5/1.7/1.8t depending on configuration (AFAIR 2.5l Diesel engine for 1.8t), and we regularly made use of that. Admittedly 2026 is not 1983, but a BMW 3 class (not X3) can also tow 1.8t. A current VW Passat tows 1.8t to 2.2t. (Both of those are available as either limousines or station wagons.) What's the point of the F150 then? I guess if you want to do tow 1.2t every day? I would expect that the max rating also be higher if the reliability/life is better...
Ed.: nevermind, I should've just looked up the F150. It's listed as 3.4t up to 6.35t depending on configuration. Where do you get 1.2t? Is there a separate rating for "when you do this every day"?
Ed.²: wait, are you talking about hauling there? That really didn't come across for me, with the preceding sentence. (more searching) Ah, yeah. 1.4t for F150, 2.6t for F350. The 8t on F350 you're mentioning is for towing again.
(FWIW, Europeans needing anything like this generally get a Ford Transit or Mercedes Sprinter.)
Payload is almost always your limit, not pure towing capacity. You need to look at the maximum weight payload your vehicle is configured to carry (usually on a sticker in the door jamb) - this limits how much you can tow because you need 9-13% of your trailers tongue weight on the hitch which your car carries 100%
If you have 800 lbs of payload, two 175 lb adults you now have 450 lbs left of payload for a trailer you are left with ~4500 lbs of tow capacity using 10% of that on the tongue. It's not just people either - anything in your vehicle lowers your payload (the physical hitch itself, pets, coolers, accessories, ect)
Lots of people just look at pure tow capacity but ignore tongue weight/payload capacity of what they are using to two.
Most common F-150 configurations are actually limited on their tow capacity by payload over their advertised raw tow capacity. My 2012 F-150 farm truck has 1400 lb payload, minus two people and the hitch you're at ~ 900 lbs left for tongue weight so ~ 9000 lb pull load or ~4t
The other thing people neglect to consider is just where they tow and WHAT they tow. There's a big difference between a flat utility trailer and a square cargo trailer.
I guess my point is numbers aren't everything.
Source: 20 years in the professional trucking industry
You're absolutely right, and I would hope people have at least some awareness of this. (There's enough trailer accidents & wrecks to indicate against that, sadly.)
That said, looking at the numbers still makes some sense to get a rough understanding of the design space of these cars though. (And, well, the numbers I was replying to were confusing the heck out of me.)
(My source: German class BE driver's license = car with heavy trailers. You're limited to 0.75t trailer OR (car + trailer) ≤ 3.5t without that, in B. The E is a separate exam, both theoretical and practical. Aside from theory bits on how cars with trailers behave, you have to parallel park or T-turn a trailer to pass it.)
It totally depends on your use case
One of the reasons I love a pickup is that it separates the cargo from the interior
A lot of times I have oil/gas/chemicals/something dirty in the bed which I would not want in the cabin space
Also it depends do you care about height of cargo or not?
For example a minivan can fit plywood but not a dirt bike
I've known people who chose minivans specifically for carrying motorcycles.
I'm guessing its a sport bike though, dirt bikes are way taller
> It just gets soccer mom vibes, so it's not $120,000
I always find such arguments comical. Have you seen soccer moms? They all drive huge SUVs. SUVs = soccer mom vibes!
It's the soccer mom treadmill.
Station Wagons -> Minivans -> SUVs
What's next? I hope we loop around back to station wagons.
Why? I know SW handle better, but who cares. Modern familys handle plenty well.
The taller the car the less safe it is for everyone around it.
And I rented an SUV once and was surprised by how small it was on the inside compared to the outside. Seemed way less practical than it could have been.
They are tall for ground clearance. Fantastic if you deal with a lot of off road situations. Like all other things discussed in this thread, it is underutilized.
Still, I prefer driving a awd suv in winter if I am at risk of being in a snowstorm.
Yeah we're talking about soccer moms, they don't need ground clearance. Station wagons can just as easily have AWD, Subaru were famous for it.
> The bed was not large enough to readily hold full sheets of plywood
Many trucks are sold as not much more than vehicles to haul around some plants. But, what I would consider 'real' trucks tend to have 8' beds. My old Toyota Tundra was great at towing, had an 8' bed and was generally an all around great vehicle. It was long, but it was meant to be.
Eh, depends on your use case. I've got an F250 that I use for towing, and we specifically chose a standard bed rather than a long bed when we got it - and that's after having an 8' bed on our previous truck. The long bed is certainly nice sometimes (and was great for camping in!), but it's also pretty annoying whenever you're not actually using the bed length, which ends up being most of the time.
I haul plywood all the time, though; the shorter bed isn't really a problem. either you slide it in at an angle or you put the tailgate down and put it in that way with a strap.
There are two kinds of trucks. There are trucks that people buy for their capabilities, and there are trucks that people buy because driving a truck is part of their personality. The latter is far more popular, so your average truck ends up not being very good at doing truck things because it doesn’t have to be.
This is a lazy stereotype of people. But there’s a huge number of truck owners that only need a truck once a month, so they buy a truck. I’m one of these people and actively resisted buying a truck for years and finally caved in. I think it’s easy for folks, perhaps like you, to scoff and say that’s a minor inconvenience but it really isn’t. And sometimes it’s one of those things you can’t plan, or you go 6 months without using but then you have something come up where you use it daily for a week or two.
Did you buy a practical truck, or did you buy an SUV with a uselessly tiny bed tacked on? If the latter, then I wonder why you'd do that if you actually need a truck on a monthly basis. If the former, then you're not in the category I'm scoffing at.
Sheet goods fit in my truck, but I don’t want to load/unload them to that height. The bed is mostly good for dirty stuff I don’t want in the interior of any vehicle. Muddy boots, bags of concrete, kids sports gear, etc. for sheet goods and bigger heavy stuff I have a trailer and the truck the towing capacity for most needs. Occasionally I still need a heavy duty and just rent it.
The Tahoe I had last was a great as I keep tools and what dry in the truck. It only had 2 rows of seating and I don’t need more passenger space in my vehicle. My wife has the city vehicle SUV that we keep clean and use for passengers. Mine is the work / utility vehicle.
When I replaced it recently , the same trim level cost twice as much as a Silverado. And they all have 3 rows now, which means I lose most that space.
It’s all about trade offs. No vehicle is a perfect all rounder. I’d prefer the Tahoe but didn’t want to pay extra for it and have to yank out the 3rd row. I could own a Corolla but it would be overly inconvenient, and probably more expensive over time, to rent a larger vehicle every time I need it.
This is why I don't get trucks with tiny beds. I've had a few Chevy 1500's and those were great with the full length bed. I've got a 2nd generation Tacoma with its longer bed, and its just on the edge of too small for some things.
I see people with trucks with 4ft beds (like the weird Jeep thing) and they just seem useless. Gimme an 8ft bed, ideally a bit longer! I don't need a big cab, but I have a truck to be a truck!
(Really, my 2nd gen Toyota Tacoma is pretty close to perfect 95% of the time for me, especially with a cap on the back)
I'm not a car guy, buy there's a car podcast I really like where the host often tells people that even though they think they want a truck or an SUV, they probably need a minivan or a station wagon.
Sports cars are for the track, trucks are for hauling, and most drivers don't need either.
Are there any station wagons made for the North American market anymore?
Modern SUVs which are not truck based are essentially taller station wagons.
Of less-tall there a Subarus at least.
Would a hatchback such as a Subaru Impreza qualify? Two rows of seats, rear storage area that isn't a trunk/has windows into it.
outback is typically the "wagon" subaru, but some people say with the newer redesign it's more SUV like. I have an impreza and it is the perfect size for me, wife, and dog with a roof top box. so cheap and easy to work on
in the future I am 100% getting a minivan
> Sports cars are for the track, trucks are for hauling
I wish I could show you the photo of my Mazda Miata with six 12' 2x6s hanging out the back. :-)
I think image uploads are quite common on the internet, unless something has changed?
Does he really respond with "you need" to people saying "I want?" That sounds insufferable.
If someone says "I need a truck or suv" then I understand saying "you may not need one." But someone saying they want one then someone else explaining what they need is just condescending.
Fast wagons like the rs6 have a cult status among car enthousiasts. I do get it.
> Sports cars are for the track, trucks are for hauling
Someone hasn't seen not the Dakar Rally, but the support trucks class for it. The rally cars need support. Replacement tires, suspension parts, engines. How do they get them? A fleet of support vehicles doing the same course. So then they made that a race as well. The Dakar Rally Truck edition features heavy vehicles weighing over 3,500 kg (7,716 lb) T4/5 racing across 8000km/5000 miles of sand, rocks, and desert.
I always encourage people to consider a two door if they're planning to use the truck for utility purposes.
I picked up a 70k mile 2011 Silverado from an Ontario government auction for $3000 and it's worked great. Tows my boat, carries my dirt bikes, and has enough room in the cab for me, my partner, and my dog between us. Who needs a backseat!
The Ford F-150 Lightning also failed and it was a full truck. It similarly was way too expensive, both for consumer and Ford, and had some issues with towing (range).
I had a friend who 'preordered' to get Cybertruck and he couldn't justify the price which was $140k CAD, so he bought a new Chevy pickup truck instead for $70-80k CAD.
I think a lot of the F-150s failure comes down to dealers. You can read myriad stories in the EV subreddits of dealers putting "market adjustments" on the Lightning and Mach-E of tens of thousands of dollars. It was if they didn't want them to sell, and I think we all know why (lower revenue from regular maintenance like oil changes and other fluids).
I have a buddy that has worked for corporate auto companies for 20 years. In most cities, dealerships make little to no money on the initial sale as competition has driven them down to dealer pricing. They make all their money on add ons (undercoating, paint protection), financing kick backs, warranties, and ongoing maintenance (this being the largest chunk). So there's probably a lot of truth to what you are saying.
Couple that with the fact that these were sold at a $20-$30k premium over a regular ICE truck and the fact that you not only couldn't get these at MSRP, but you had to spend an extra $10k on top and.. yeah...
I think F150 was the right vehicle but the wrong price point.
That’s a hard comparison point though when the ICE F-150 was the perfect substitute it was competing against. To me, that mostly proves that people didn’t want to go electric or pay the premium for it. The F150 design itself, does fit the bill as a truck doing what a truck needs to do.
I also bought a new Chevy truck recently for less than $40k USD, mid tier trim. Other trucks can be very affordable. The trim and budget options are quite wide. Tesla was never going to get to that as it requires volume.
There's also the dynamic of how many people buy pickup trucks who don't actually need full trucks. I'm not sure how much better Cybertruck would have sold if it actually performed better as one given the price (or more so if the Youtube reviewers gave it more appeal as a real truck to people who dont need one).
There's also a big market for luxury SUVs. But you could buy a nice BMW SUV for nearly half the price. So it was really just competing with higher end SUVs.
Which is why I believe it was mostly a price issue, not that there isn't a market for such a hybrid (half SUV / pretend truck) concept.
We have a lightning specifically because we need a full sized truck. Our RAM ICE's cargo capacity was barely over 1000 lbs (BMW i3: 800 lbs). The Ford EV's capacity is 2250lbs.
Also, the RAM's transmission overheated on gentle slopes.
The slate looks great (more cargo weight capacity than our full sized RAM ICE truck; half the price, much lower fuel costs, much more convenient to own).
If their second model is 250 class, we'd probably buy it. The Lightning can only tow 10,000lbs, so it's not great at hauling rock, etc -- it can do it, but only ~2.5 tons per load when you add in the weight of the trailer. This means we have to keep paying $100's to delivery services.
It'd be nice if that hypothetical 250 slate seated 5-6 people too. That'd let it be a backup kid hauler, like the lightning is. The lightning has more bells and whistles, but the aesthetics of the slate are much better, and I like the idea of just buying an aftermarket radio that does not integrate in with the power train.
Of course, if we didn't need a truck, we'd get a Rivian R1S/T. They're great for camping, etc, and what most people want when they buy a pickup truck as a family car.
The slate isn’t even comparable to a 150 class. Their whole thing was filling the small duty void in the US market, so I think it’d be a long time before they put out an 250 class.
No idea why it "failed" or was discontinued. From what i remember there was a huge waitlist to get one. I know lots of people that wanted on. It looked amazing IMO. I dont think it was a demand issue that caused it to be canceled
To be fair, if the waitlist length was to be believed, they were made when the vehicle was advertised with substantially better capabilities at substantially lower costs. A lot of people cancelled reservations when the actual specs were announced.
The initial hype is easy to get caught up in. I jump on the list with Slate on day one and ultimately decided I didn’t want it. That’s after years of wanting basically exactly what they’re building. I mostly decided the range was insufficient and it was too underpowered for towing (specs were not originally announced IIRC). I also wanted to see one in person first and never got that opportunity, I wish they did a body only roadshow leading up to the purchase decision, but ultimately was concerned it might just feel uncomfortable. I was early enough that I was able to secure the first month of delivery but declined it.
Funny thing is I don’t think it’s actually as cheap as many people expect. Because I think most people will be doing $5-10k of addons just to get some pretty base functionality and mods it comes without. Still think it’s a cool concept
The Lightning didn't really fail. It was the best selling EV pickup in the US by a large margin.
I think it was killed for political reasons: They repurposed the plant for AI datacenter batteries. I predict we'll have EV pickup trucks again if the 2028 election looks like the 2026 election.
Anyway, my next full sized pickup will also be a pure EV. If I can't get a Ford, then I'll get something else. (The lightning is far better at truck stuff than our late model GMC and Ram trucks were. Maybe I can get a truck from China + register in Mexico? Is that a thing?)
The new Lightning has a useless serial hybrid setup and gets 700 miles of range (who needs that?). I suspect it'll end up being like other serial hybrids, and an option to omit the gas engine will be available, and also substantially lower the price (or enable a larger battery). In the meantime, they'll tell Trump that he managed to kill EV pickup trucks.
I don't know, seems like there was a lot of demand for the Lightning, still not sure why Ford canned it.
If:
Fuel economy regulations had not been suspended and the electric vehicle credits hadn't expired I'll bet there would still be a Lightning.
Unlike the CyberTrash. The question (to me) is did Ford make a semi-rational short-term financial decision at the expense of its future competitiveness?
Van like Fiat Ducato is superior to american pickups: more volume, more payload great fuel economy for half the price of f150.
There are a lot of lenses through which to view the failure of the cybertruck: aesthetics, not enough truck not enough SUV, size, association of aesthetics with politics, etc. But I think the main one that is ignored is price.
The cybertruck was built in an era of high truck prices driven by zero interest rates. It bet on the price of trucks going up, just as the Ford F150 electric did. That was the wrong bet.
If it was a $40,000 truck, it would have a much bigger market despite all the other explanations of its failure. The market moved under it.
The average price paid for a full-size truck in the US is north of $65,000.
- https://www.theautopian.com/the-average-full-size-truck-now-...
- https://www.ceicdata.com/en/united-states/new-vehicle-averag...
And there has been 31% cumulative inflation since the cybertruck launched, so perhaps I should have said if it had been a $49,000 truck. But either way, it’s clearly a luxury vehicle that was disproportionately affected by interest rates.
Do you know what the median price is?
I'm unable to find published numbers on median price. Kneejerk, a median price 15% lower than avg still gives us a $55,000 truck.
That said, these numbers DO exclude luxury pickups like the Denali, King Ranch … which would send the average even higher.
No longer...
Is it higher now?
That's taking into account farm purchases though, which have a unique shape of "a new truck at any price" in good years zeroing out profits.
I think median, agriculture-excluded would be more representative.
Granted, that's still pushed up by loaded in-town trophy trucks without a spot of mud on them.
I think what you're saying is there's likely a significant number of "cheapest possible truck" purchases in this data that means the median price is actually _higher_ than the average - the median is dragged down by cheap farm trucks. Given that this $65k figure already excludes luxury trucks, that might be the case.
“New truck at any price” is a reference to the tax year-end buying surge of over-6000 lb vehicles for commercial purposes, and farms have the biggest tax breaks I believe. This will pull the average prices higher as the higher price protects more money from taxes.
I think another big one was the time from announcement to release.
When it was announced, for those who wanted an electric truck, it was going to be the only game in town. By the time Tesla delivered, there were several options already on the road from various companies. The people who really wanted an electric truck were already happy customers of another company by the time the cybertruck shipped. I see a fair number of Rivian, F-150 Lightning, and Hummer EVs around me.
When it comes to price, I expect to see a lot of Slate trucks once it starts shipping, with its low price.
I thought their announcement coincided with the Lightning announcement and likely threw a cheap price out there to undermine it.
Yeah, when they said $40k I thought I might get one. $100k, no, not me.
True still thru today: Trucks priced higher than the Cybertruck sell at higher volumes than the cybertruck.
Which undermines / invalidates your point.
See: F150 Raptor: 20-25k units per year (estimate), avg price: $100k
Yeah, but those ppl want trucks, not an EV "truck"
Worst thing Musk did in context of Tesla is to alienate core demographics for EVs with his politics.
Musk's politics? It was Biden that chose Unions over Environmentalism and American manufacturing. Almost everything spiraled after that, to the point where people were unabashedly claiming the whole Nazi salute thing. Looking back, it was wrong to let the crazies have their way.
Unions and environmentalism are two orthogonal issues. I'm not sure how you tie those two together.
There isn't even a need to discuss the intent of the salute; just look at who he donated to and who he supported as candidates. The problem is that buyers who want EVs are much, much more likely to align with the opposite ideology.
You don’t think that thing was a least a homage to the Nazi salute?
Not only that, Musk straight up decided to support Republican candidates who are vocally anti-environmental, anti-electrification, anti-incentives to shift consumer and industry change. He supported candidates and ideology that do not align with the buyers most likely to associate themselves with EVs.
I am not making a judgement here at all and I'm making zero comments on Musk's ideology or character, only that he made a poor branding decision by supporting a voting base and politicians that to not represent the folks most likely to buy a Tesla.
You don't need to argue the intent of the salute; you can just see which candidates he supported and donated to.
(It's fine to debate policy on things like incentives, but that is at least part of the reason why we see China making big leaps here because the government has aligned the incentives with buyers and manufacturers to make electrification the default)
The article even said it was a rounding error in terms of Tesla’s earnings, and expectations were tepid to begin with, and other brands such as Ford also failed with electric trucks. It is not as big of a deal as people have made it out to be. The cars are Tesla’s main business by far. The Cybertruck was a distraction basically.
> expectations were tepid to begin with
Tesla projected selling 250k of these a year or $15-20b in revenue per year (20%+ of vehicle revenue for Tesla). This is a big number and would’ve added significant total vehicle sales. Instead, they’ve sold less than 70,000 total trucks over its production history. That’s why it’s a rounding error.
This is an absolute disaster and failure by any rational analysis. Its failure helped puncture “Tesla sales will continue to increase” and stock price justification storyline.
> It is not as big of a deal as people have made it out to be.
No more of a big deal than any other $2 billion loss.
I think the aesthetics are quite important. One thing that set Tesla apart was that they didn’t build weirdmobiles. They started out when manufacturers made “alternative” vehicles look weird to set them apart. The Prius is the classic example. The Leaf was another obvious one. This weirdness has an important impact on the market, because it meant that you called attention to yourself when you were driving one. When you drove a Prius, you weren’t just getting great gas mileage, you were figuratively shouting to everyone around you “look at me, I drive a Prius!” (With an implication of “I’m saving the planet,” and a further implication of “and you’re not, you philisitine.”)
Then Tesla makes an electric car that’s just a car. Surely, they put their own design touches on it, but it mostly looked like an ordinary sedan. Then they made something that mostly looked like an ordinary SUV. And then more ordinary-looking models. They looked distinctive but they didn’t look weird and didn’t make a statement the way a Prius did.
And then they make the weirdest weirdmobile that there ever was. And released it right before making a loud statement of “I’m driving an Elon Musk car!” became really unattractive to a lot of people.
> They started out when manufacturers made “alternative” vehicles look weird to set them apart. The Prius is the classic example.
The 1st gen Prius (97-01) looked utterly conventional though, just like a slightly taller Yaris due to the batteries. It was the second generation onward that looked "weird", I think due to aerodynamicsmaxxing.
It’s pretty easy to buy a $80k full size ICE truck.
Yes and:
Tesla scaled up CyberTruck production before finding product market fit. Somewhere tween SUV and truck, and without a clear purpose. (I thought Tesla's initial market segment was going to focus on who ever buys Jeeps, boondocking, outdoorsy stuff.)
IMHO, CyberTruck would have been a modest hit if first production run was 100. Treat CyberTruck like Roadster. A niche vehicle for a niche market. Grant enthusiasts the earliest access to the best technology.
I honestly thought that was the plan.
It would have been the cheapest, fastest way for Tesla to de-risk all of the innovations used in CyberTruck. Major stuff that Tesla's could not gracefully, incrementally add to their other models (eg 48V).
And a perfect precursor of for the Robocab (neé Model 2), that would benefit most from the innovations.
Oh well. What do I know? Musk is a trillionaire and I am not, so clearly not much.
> (I thought Tesla's initial market segment was going to focus on who ever buys Jeeps, boondocking, outdoorsy stuff.)
I'm part of that market and was initially curious about the cybertruck but it was clear that tesla was totally unserious about building an actual 4x4 overlanding vehicle. I'm not sure EVs are even there yet for a true exploring vehicle since it's the extreme end of the range problem. There are places people go that are a couple hundred miles from the nearest supercharger, and I bet rock crawling kills the range like towing does.
The actual target market was probably a guy who spends 100k on a heavily upgraded Rubicon that never drives on dirt or gets a scratch, and happens to be a huge elon fanboy.
The overlanding issues are range and lack of major customizability. Overlanders rarely go more than 100mi out, what they love is the community and talking about all the upgrades they've done.
It didn't fail, more than Model S did, which saw the same fate.
It certainly did not "fail" on aesthetics. Few people would not take note of it, and it wasn't overly impractical. Some people hated DeLorean too, which just made it even more popular as well ...
> It didn't fail
Tesla forecasted selling 250,000 trucks per year by 2025
Actual sales
2024 - 38,965
2025 - 20,237
2026 to date - 11,586
This includes trucks that have been “sold” to other Musk companies.
This product was a complete failure, making the Ford Edsel look like a roaring success
The Model S was released when Tesla had sold a grand total of around 2,500 cars. It sustained the company for years and did most of the work bootstrapping them from tiny niche to a mass market car with the Model 3.
The Cybertruck was released when the company was selling millions of cars a year. It did pretty much nothing for their bottom line, didn’t break them into any new markers, and fell far short of expectations.
I think worse than just selling poorly, it served as a massive distraction to their development team, keeping them from releasing or updating other, more important cars.
> Some people hated DeLorean too, which just made it even more popular as well ..
They sold 9,000 DeLorean's _total_. It was a punchline in Back to the Future, it wasn't seen as cool at all.
> Some people hated DeLorean too, which just made it even more popular as well
If you see CyberTrucks and DeLoreans as successful, I'd hate to see what you call a failure.
I like the aesthetics a lot. It recalls the DeLorean, which is one of my favorite automotive designs.
But the cost is steep when I'm more in the market for an SUV or offroading vehicle than a truck. Not to mention that the extent to which Musk and Tesla are intertwined with politics is really not an easy sell for me.
Yeah I'm another who actually likes the rough idea of the aesthetics.
A sedan built by another company with similar aesthetics without completely ignoring...well basically everything from safety to build quality, would probably be on my potential list.
Also the things are built like utter shit. The panels come unglued, they rust in the rain, the engine, suspension and steering malfunction, the trim cracks, they leak, they burst into flames, then the door handles don't work when your Cybertruck bursts into flames.
I have to assume that politics or sunk cost are the only reasons people keep these things because they are objectively awful vehicles.
The absurdity is the best part of it. Finally it was something new, in a landscape where every car and truck has looked the same for the past 20 years. I'm happy someone designed and built something so crazy and different.
It probably would have been better had they not been mass produced, and maybe did a very limited quantity run - make it more like a collector item... I suppose thats what it'll be now. I see quite a few on the road, it takes away from the uniqueness.
Tesla's mission was never to built "something crazy and different". In fact it was kind of the opposite: when Model S came out, Tesla showed the world that EVs don't need to look or drive differently than traditional cars, because all EVs which came before Model S were either looked like a concept car or a small toy-like car. Tesla continued this success with Model 3 and Model Y. Then they started deviating from their mission and came up with Cybertruck. All they needed to do was to show the world that an EV truck can be just as practical and capable as a gasoline truck. They didn't need to go crazy with the design, make it bullet-proof, choose stainless steel which made the manufacturing harder... They shot themselves in the foot.
I find the auto market stale as well. However the CT could have been so much better if it sought to answer that demand with a positive vision rather being a reactionary revolt. Somehow a food critic has given the best critique that I've seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEcZSM6xS80
The Oscar Meyer weiner truck is also unique
I really agree with you here. I would never buy one (vw buzz is more my style) but I loved it in a weird “thank god something new and unique” way. Like my love for good brutalist office buildings even if I’d never want to live in a brutalist home.
The amount of hate it gets has been yet another clear indication to me just how annoyingly tribal people are. It shows you’re in the in-group and definitely-a-righteous-good-guy if you hate on the cybertruck. Not hating on the cybertruck is basically admitting you’re a fascist (I’ve had a friend literally tell me this non-jokingly). I think that’s really what 80% of the hate comes down to.
Hating the cybertruck might be tribal for some people, but definitely not everyone. I thought it was stupid and ugly from the moment it was announced, and I still think it's stupid and ugly, and it is demonstrably bad at the job of "being a truck".
You can celebrate Tesla for trying something new while still hating the actual thing that they tried for being bad.
I remember feeling that it was ugly when it was initially released, and then saw repeated messages on HN from people who said it "looked better than you think in person". I assumed they were right, and that it would actually come out for usd40k and have seating for 6.
Sadly, all three of my assumptions were false.
lol, no. I actually saw one at a client's and beside being uglier than what a 5yo would be able to draw, it was also built like shit. I'm talking about going to the hardware store for aluminum panels and bend them, cut with scissors and some soldering job here and there kind of bad.
thank god these monstruosities were forbidden in europe
Not forbidden. Tesla didn't even try to have them declared road safe so a buyer would need to get the permits himself.
This is a false binary.
The design aesthetics for automobiles can be stale and this could also be a terrible, unworkable, ugly design.
The Ioniq 5 leans into the same aesthetic too and that car is everywhere now, so it's not like there's anything fundamentally keeping that from working.
I'll take boring sameness over sharp pedestrian-mangling edges, thanks.
Full disclosure: I work for a competitor to Tesla so I'm a bit biased.
The Cybertruck I thought was initially kind of neat but when you try to use one as a truck you quickly can see some glaring problems that most people who buy a truck want. Towing with an EV is terrible. I've heard there's power stations with pull throughs but havent' seen them personally. The truck bed isn't practical for anything but a lawn mower. When I ride in one it rides like a car. It doesn't look good dirty. I just think they were going for warthog from Halo and thought the rest would work out. It's also super expensive for all these issues. It's a hobby vehicle. A toy.
I think Tesla is struggling personally. The marketing tactics of showcasing cars we'll never be able to buy just to cause a scene. Don't get me wrong the new Roadster my jaw dropped and I agree with Elon now that SpaceX and Tesla are the 'same' company I think it's great but let's be realistic. Most people want cars that are cheap, dependable and sort of cool. Not everyone can afford multiple cars, and a corvette that isn't feasible. Like I said I work for a competitor (GM) and I fear China is going to eat our lunch. Unless we make infrastructure for charging better and make it a no brainer.
I would buy an electric car tomorrow, I have access to cheap charging, and I don't even do long commutes. But there is zero chance I want a spyware car that's like another cell phone.
The U.S. is being protectionist because of Chinese cars that can spy on U.S. soil-- just do the right thing and stop all the car spying nonsense. Require manufacturers to open the code and let us even develop alternatives.
Tell GM.
I can't upvote you high enough for this. GM just paid a huge amount for accidentally selling driving info to data brokers I'm sure you've heard. SDV is a strange concept to me. I'm not on the engineering teams doing that work but there are lots of people kicking up dust about exactly your point.
It was no accident.
I have an electric Hyundai and you can disable all internet connectivity fairly easily. I have mine disabled and the car works fine. It never connects to any internet connection. I suspect that most other modern cars are similar. The firmware is closed source, but it works fine. It supports CarPlay and Android Auto, which are effectively open standards, so you can replace the infotainment system with whatever you want. This is standard for modern cars.
Has anyone checked that "disabled" actually means disabled? The last 20 years of surveillance creep in computing tells us that these check boxes are often meaningless.
America is the only country where buying private data is legal so this is a flawed idea. Ford would definitely spy on you for those adbucks.
Heard of Slate Auto? Full electric, simple, no cellular modem at all, hand-crank windows.
IDK. Grok bot works with Tesla’s grok so today I learned I can just ask how’s my house is doing. It responded how much solar I’m making vs consuming, hows batteries are doing, is garage door open and flagged that my heatpump water heater is off (i shut it earlier because it can get little loud).
Yes you can sort of get there with Siri and HomeKit, bug nowhere close to sophistication.
Yes please. Make it a selling point and people will buy it.
Here in Australia, it's interesting how well the Tesla cars are still selling.
The model Y is still the best selling EV despite the wide choice of other brands. BYD out sell them in aggregate, but Tesla are holding their own pretty well. Of course, all the Tesla cars here are made in the Shanghai Gigafactory, but still, I don't think Chinese brand dominance is a forgone conclusion. I think the real danger is if American protectionism makes Tesla feel like they don't need to innovate any more.
Software is everything when it comes to EV's. As an American, I've had many years of experience with software from around the world. No one makes software more suited for Americans, than other Americans.
The UX of the car software is only a small portion. The actual car has a lot of software which isn't cultural.
The dashboard and UX of the car can be tailored to a culture, while the onboard processing remains the same - it's just one software update away. This is sort of a silver lining of removing physical dials and buttons and going all in with touch-screen.
These are exactly the kind of takes I still come to this site for!
Can you explain a little more? What expectations do Americans have of software that are unique to their country?
just compare the landing pages for taobao or baidu to the western equivalent. UX for the asian market has wildly different expectations and best practices
Right. Like TikTok??
> No one makes software more suited for Americans, than other Americans.
yeah that's why there's no immigrants in US tech am I rite.
that's also why tiktok is not used by americans at all /s
How well does the self driving work over there? That's the real innovation and personally it seems to work well enough in America so I'm curious what your experience is with that.
I used it in a Tesla Y to commute to work in Sydney (from Terry Hills to Alexandria).
Absolutely sublime. I turned it off _once_ yesterday as I didnt trust the gap it was leaving with a woman who was driving over the lines.
Honestly blew me away.
My colleague at work paid extra for it a few years ago - still waiting for it to activated… not sure it widely available here yet
That doesn’t sound right, why are some people same to get it and not others. As far as I’m aware you can go buy a Tesla in Australia and enable it via subscription.
Only on later HW3 cars. Older cars can still buy the subscription but get limited features (summon, etc, not full self driving). Apparently there’s work underway to support older cars
China is bringing their more expensive cars first to make money once the market gets saturated then we might see more domination as they try to compete for more market share
> now that SpaceX and Tesla are the 'same' company
Did I miss something big on the stock market or are these actually still two different public companies? How do the shareholders of both of these (ostensibly different, kind of unrelated) large publicly-held companies feel about them being conflated like this? Is there any historical precedent for this situation?
I read this as 2 phrases
“I agree with Elon now”
Meaning now I agree, and
“that SpaceX and Tesla are the 'same' company”
With ‘same’ in quotes meaning they are not literally the same but conceptually they are the same.
FTR I do not agree they are the ‘same’ company and I think the circular relationships between Musk’s companies is kind of like a shell game.
Sorry I did not mean to be vague you hit the nail on the head but I think the circular relationships he's made between his companies has real pay off.
Seems super strange to have 2 seemingly successful companies with huge market caps and you want to merge them?
There are two big advantages for Musk…
1. Power. He can amass more power by concentrating it in SpaceX. There was a lot of financing needed getting Tesla to mass produce vehicles… where Musk likely conceded more power (and money) than he wanted.
2. SpaceX (sans xAI and Xitter) is the one business he’s got really generating a profit and likely will be able to continue that trend. It lets him paper over financial issues that would show up in the balance sheets of individual companies.
They are still distinct public companies and they want to merge them. And even today the amount of cross mingling between those two entities however is quite significant. You would not necessarily know that they are independent from each other.
The roadster uses Space X propulsion tech, the cybercab uses starlink, grok is in all Tesla cars, both companies share Terafab. But then Tesla also supplies batteries and cybertrucks to Space X etc.
The "roadster demo for a car that doesnt exist and may never exist" uses space x propulsion tech.
They might be confusing X, which is a subsidiary of SpaceX. The IPO was just a vehicle to pay off X’s debt.
> The IPO was just a vehicle to pay off X’s debt.
... and to offload a ton of bad luck onto retail bagholders.
Once the AI bubble pops, SPCX will collapse, but everyone in on the game will have gotten much more thanks to selling their stock than they'd ever put in in either SpaceX or Twitter.
There is a rumor going around that Musk is going to merge the two in December before the Democrats take power.
Always thought it was designed after the '79 toy the Big Trak. Even the initial concept of the trailer looked like it was from the aesthetic.
Wow, I'd forgotten about these. Thanks.
What is your opinion on the upcoming Tesla Semi? I expect that it will be successful, useful, and efficient.
Nobody expects an impressive 1/4 mile time from a vehicle towing a trailer. That's not what makes EVs bad at towing.
My towing-capable gas vehicle sees at worst a 30% decrease in range from towing my camping trailer, and my towing-capable diesel vehicle sees closer to a 10% decrease in range.
A while back, I read a comment on here from someone who lived in a trailer full-time as a digital nomad. They were also dedicated to driving an EV. They towed their small trailer with their Model Y. I grant you, the Model Y is not optimized for towing the way that the Cybertruck (ostensibly) is, but they described the process of travelling between Grand Junction, Colorado, and Moab, Utah, a distance just over 110 miles. With the trailer, they had to drive to Cisco, about halfway in between, drop the trailer, drive back to Grand Junction, recharge fully, drive back again, pick up the trailer, and drive the remaining 60 or so miles to Moab, where they could recharge again. Because without the trailer, they could drive the entire 1-way distance 3 times over without recharging. With the trailer, they could not make the whole trip once.
That is pretty bad. Probably a combination of the smaller battery, and a very non-aerodynamic trailer. Of course, an ICE truck could do it without too much trouble, but that's largely because most tow-focused ICE vehicles are wildly inefficient compared to EVs and are discarding lots of unused capacity every time you drive them without towing near maximum load. Not a big deal when diesel is cheap, but now, less so.
If you think about how much excess power your diesel is wasting when you aren't hauling its kinda crazy. When you changed the total weight, and thus total energy required in the system, 50-70%, you only started using 10% more energy.
I remember my family driving long distances in a 1980s VW Diesel, we could barely climb hills but we got 50mpg.
It is reductive to say it is terrible. The issue is that the current range we are putting in trucks, adjusted for the range loss from towing a large trailer, is insufficient.
The Tesla Semi proves that this is the issue: with an extremely large battery and high-speed charging, the Semi solves these problems.
A regular truck that can TOW 300 miles would certainly not be "terrible for towing."
> A regular truck that can TOW 300 miles would certainly not be "terrible for towing."
Agreed. A fairly typical gas half-ton gets 300 miles from a tank. If an EV can get that distance and recharge in like half an hour it would be a pretty great truck.
It's not hard to run the number and see how likely it is (spoiler alert: not very).
The first easy number is the sheer amount of energy, diesel has an energy density of 10.7kWh/L, so a 30gal tank holds 1460kWh. By comparison a silverado EV (probably the best currently available EV tower short of a semi) has a 215kWh battery.
The second more complicated number and why diesel is so good at towing (and other high-power applications) is that diesel gets more efficient when loaded, by a factor of 2-ish: an unloaded diesel might only use ~20% of the fuel it burns to actually move stuff, or on a 30gal you get around 300kWh out of your 1460kWh tank, but that will climb to 35~40% as the load increases if kept in the efficiency range, so towing you might have 500~550kWh out of 1460kWh available to actually move your load.
There's no such thing on an EV, there's some variation but load isn't really a factor, pretty much just the band, so your Silverado gets 205kWh usable at the wheels unloaded and the same loaded. Therefore all the towing losses (rolling resistance and drag) come straight out of your range.
And short of a breakthrough on batteries it's difficult to add more battery capacity, the battery already accounts for a third of a silverado's weight and a significant fraction of its internal volume. Getting a 500kWh battery in a truck is currently impossible: that's the sort of capacity you find on semis (european EV semis cluster around 550~650).
And then of course you have the charge concern, charging a 500kWh battery in half an hour requires a megawatt charger running at more than 1MW, and the ability to ingest that in your pack (on 800V battery tech that's 1250 amps, which is within MCS specs but the vehicle side is pretty damn rough).
They provided a concrete example: Trying to charge when a trailer is attached.
> As I understand, electric motors deliver instant maximum torque. Isn't that advantageous for towing?
Your understanding is not wrong, but quantity of torque is a minor piece of what matters, so that doesn't move the needle.
Towing lowers the range of an EV by so much that it becomes nearly useless. This is much more important with an EV than an ICE, because EV charging is less available and takes much longer.
It's understandable that you might not fully understand the magnitude of the pros and cons from your LLM prompt, those sorts of responses usually assume certain levels of experience and familiarity with the topic. It'll make more sense when you get older!
Towing for traveling, you mean. Around town, a Lightning with a big utility trailer is still good for over 100 miles, and that meets the use case for a lot of small businesses that need to tow. We get a bunch of them over on the Lightning forum. They love the truck, and they love how inexpensive and convenient it is. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth (and a scramble to find funds to quickly fill out their fleet) when Ford announced the cancellation.
> quantity of torque is a minor piece of what matters, so that doesn't move the needle
I know of approximately nobody who thinks this, who actually tows anything meaningful. Somethning like a 6.2 naturally aspirated Ford V8 in an F250 is a chore, it's loud, works very hard, goes nowhere with any urgency. This is why people love diesels -- torque. And an EV takes that to the next level. The towing is sublime.
Yes, we need bigger batteries though so people can do long distance road trips with travel trailers. That niche isn't a great use case today.
The downside of electric motors for towing is that they require electricity.
And towing requires a lot of electricity. How do you bring enough electrons?
The towee could carry an additional battery. Probably not hard to link it with a cable to the tower.
RV trailers like that are coming to market, seems like a good solution. e.g.
https://pebblelife.com/
https://www.evotrex.com/
https://www.aboardrv.com/
An additional perk for these is you now have a large battery to power appliances in the trailer.
I don't think the towing aspect matters much: I live in a semi-conservative rural area of the US with a lot of truck drivers, and about 90% of pickup trucks are used as glorified minivans / SUVs anyway that are kept clean at all times. The only pickup trucks I see towing anything are much older trucks (late 80s-early 2000s). Very old 80s Toyota Hilux / Ford Rangers are a common sight as well for filling the truck bed which carries a lot more volume that even modern trucks (most of the drivers don't care about going over the weight limit).
The Cybertruck failed because it's an awfully designed vehicle, along with all of the baggage of being associated with Elon Musk's politics (whether you agree with them or not).
I think it matters. There are lots of people who have a camper or a boat or some ATVs or whatever. Maybe they only take the camper out once or twice a year, and so you never see it hooked up. However, on that one week per year, they do need it to be able to tow.
Gas/Diesel trucks lose range when towing too, but dealing with a shorter range gas truck isn't too big of a problem on a trip beyond the extra cost. Gas stations are everywhere and it takes 5 minutes to fill up. At most gas stations, filling up while towing a trailer isn't too big of a problem. Even if your truck only had a 150 mile range while towing, it would only be a minor annoyance, and the reality is that you'll probably get at least 250 miles out of a tank.
If you're towing with an electric though, you probably are looking at less than 150 miles. Now every couple of hours you have to stop for probably an hour or so, even with a fast charger, because you're probably going to want to charge the truck to full, not 80%. You're also probably driving somewhat out of your way to hit charging stations that frequently if you're not in a very populated area.
> Towing with an EV is terrible.
If you have to charge, it can be a pain. It's fine for towing short distance. It can tow up to 11k lbs.
> The truck bed isn't practical for anything but a lawn mower.
Hard disagree. I've hauled gravel, lumber, furniture, appliances. It can fit a 4x8 sheet of sheetrock with the tailgate down.
> When I ride in one it rides like a car.
It drives like a sports car. Literally the most fun vehicle I've ever driven.
> It doesn't look good dirty.
Disagree, I think it looks better dirty. More dystopian.
> It's also super expensive
The price for the AWD dual motor is comparable to other pickups.
It's also the safest pickup truck you can buy, according to the IIHS and NHTSA.
Make it make sense. A silverado Turbomax can tow 12k and the bed can handle cargo up to 2500lbs and it's around 45k and a cybertruck easy 85k. Don't get me wrong some of what I said was opinionated.
I think a more apt comparison might be a fully optioned silverado trubomax, which can range $60-$75k.
AWD CT can haul 7500 lbs, air suspension, tonneau cover, premium sound, 240v out, FSD, etc.
spec for spec though. The majority of trucks sold are the turbomax spec a turbo charged 4 cylinder. About 20% of them go to fleet sales.Higher trims yes Cybertruck has some good options but go see what WHistlin Dixie did to his and you'll understand more of my opinion.
> I think Tesla is struggling personally. The marketing tactics of showcasing cars we'll never be able to buy just to cause a scene
I think as a car company they're doing alright. They sell two of the most popular vehicles on the road. But the valuation of TSLA is 15-20x what it would be if they were valued at a car company, which is why you get over-the-top demos like the roadster.
>Towing with an EV is terrible
Why?
I explained this in my other comment but I'll paste it here:
The thing is that ICE vehicles are so inefficient to begin with, but a towed trailer needs the same amount of energy regardless of what is towing it. Imagine a trailer takes 1 unit of energy to move, and ICE truck takes 5 units to move itself, and EV truck takes 1 unit to move itself.
The ICE truck towing it would go from 5 units to 6 units, reducing the range by 16%.
The EV truck would now go from 1 unit to 2 units, reducing the range by 50%.
So the better your efficiency, the worse you are at towing. Ideally EV trucks would have such a huge battery that even when the range is reduced by 50%, it is still as long as a gas truck's range, but modern battery technology is still too sucky to achieve this.
This analysis doesn't make sense to me.
An ICE vehicle isn't less efficient because the frame itself takes more energy to move, it's less efficient because the engine burns off a high percentage of its energy as waste heat.
But that will be true regardless of what the load is. If the ICE truck takes 5 units of energy to pull itself compared with 1 unit for the electric truck, that implies that the the truck chassis only actually requires 1 unit to move, but the ICE engine burns off 80% of its energy as waste heat. The engine is only 20% efficient.
Now if you start pulling a trailer, you have (in total) 2 units of energy worth of load. But if the ICE engine is still only 20% efficient, then it will take 10 units to pull both, rather than 6.
I can believe that this effect is real (electric cars suffering more range loss when towing), but it seems to require an explanation beyond this one.
It is more complicated with ICE though because the efficiency changes with load amount, and what power output an ICE is most efficient in can be designed with towing in mind. Ive seen 90s trucks that got 18 MPG empty on a good day, but then when loaded with twice or more the vehicle's curb weight on a trailer merely drop to 17 MPG.
Generally this is only true for ICE with an abundance of extra power to start with, but that is basically every truck and most other cars for the last 25 years.
It's the effeciency curve. ICEs are more efficient with heavier loads - more fuel goes to useful work.
There's also that electric cars have a marginally better drag coefficients for a few reasons - ICE vehicles have a bot less incentive and they need to use more air for cooling - so the drag from a trailer will be worse, as a percentage extra, on the average electric vehicle.
Why would an ICE be more efficient with a heavier load?
ICE are most efficient in terms of energy in -> rotation energy out near their peak torque output for a ton of reasons:
* cylinder filling is more efficient at maximum output request (on naturally aspirated engines operating in vacuum, due to less simple pumping loss, on turbocharged or supercharged engines, due to less wasted energy producing charge air and generally more optimized air/exhaust exchange). in short, air gets into the cylinder more efficiently in the first place at high torque requests
* combustion is more complete at high cylinder filling; not only does more air get into the cylinder, but it also burns more completely
* friction losses matter less at higher torque, especially on larger engines
Almost every ICE complexity advancement over the years is to hack around these basic properties: VVL and VVT to optimize pumping, direct injection, stratified injection, and dynamic compression hackery to get around cylinder filling efficiency, and cylinder deactivation / variable displacement to avoid friction and pumping loss from unnecessary engine size. but while ICE engines have made huge strides, they're still more efficient when they're loaded.
And note that this is efficiency, not absolute consumption - of course you'll consume more at higher load still, but the ratio is better. Combine this with the aerodynamics of most ICE pickup trucks and you have a scenario where ICE trucks frequently lose very little fuel economy / actual consumption when towing a trailer.
Thanks, this makes sense. Part of my confusion was the RPM for peak torque output isn't the full condition for it, cause you're only getting peak torque at full throttle of course. And a towing truck is at higher throttle than an unburdened one.
Efficient in this situation means units of fuel per units of work.
Of course an ICE uses more fuel in absolute terms on a higher load than a lower one. But the proportion of fuel wasted compared to fuel turned into propulsion improves as load is increased (at least up to a point, maybe not all the way to absolute maximum load).
Electric systems also have efficiency curves, but they are less drastic within the primary load range.
Er right, I understood it was fuel per units of work but still didn't get it. Makes sense after reading your comment and the other ones.
Engine tuning; an engine designed for towing heavy loads is much less efficient when not towing.
The range on my diesel truck drops in half when I pull my trailer. Roughly similar to an EV towing. It also happens in winter (not quite as big a drop). Thats what most folks care about. But people like to overstate it as a dramatic downside of EVs.
But the range on the Cybertruck is starting much lower, so that halving is a lot more painful.
I frequently tow between Washington and Montana, and I only have to fill up the F-350 once or twice when loaded. You would need to recharge a loaded Cybertruck 5+ times on that same route. My 11 hour drive just turned into a 15 hour drive in ideal conditions. And I don't think there are the latest superchargers available on most of the route, so the time spent charging is likely much higher.
Don't get me wrong, I like EVs and have a Model 3 as my daily driver. But I would never get rid of the gasser given today's battery tech with the number of roadtrips we take.
> I frequently tow between Washington and Montana
But... why? Like, at that point it should make more sense shipping whatever freight you want to ship by train?!
Regular people aren’t towing freight. More likely a camper or a boat or other recreational toy. Shipping those via train whenever you wanted to go on a trip would be absurd.
The answer from someone who owns a truck and a trailer would be "why would it make sense to ship by train when I have a truck and a trailer?"
Tonnages, distance, and cost per calculations.
Locally farmers built a rail to port system as a grain carriage has more tonnage than a road train.
Two axle trailer is it? What's that max out at, two tonne?
Probably more like 7-10k lbs, so 3-5 tons, depending on the specifics of the trailer. More if it's a fifth-wheel type.
Yes, clearly there are cases when it makes sense to ship by train, otherwise they wouldn't exist. I can't tell if I'm not getting my point across, or you just want to be pedantic, but the point is that most people who own the capability of transporting something, will transport it themselves.
> depending on the specifics of the trailer.
I did specifically ask about your trailer - not a generic set of trailers, but, okay.
What I'm getting is you don't have a prime mover actual truck with one, two, or three trailers to tow single or in a road train.
> the point is that most people who own the capability of transporting something, will transport it themselves.
to some degree but by no means always, sometimes it makes sense to have others do transport while getting on and doing others things in the same time.
> or you just want to be pedantic
Just familiar with transport, a great deal across a remote state 3x size of Texas, and a fair amount to other parts of the world, by air and sea.
The problem is charging stations are few and far between in rural areas already.
> This analysis doesn't make sense to me.
Because the numbers are a bit off. I've towed a lot, gas trucks do not lose 15% when towing. My old F150 went from 18mpg to 10mpg. My super duty went from 16mpg to 8mpg.
The advantage is that gas is so energy dense we just routinely equip trucks with 35+ gallon fuel tanks. There's no battery option equivalent yet.
I think what it actually says is that EV has short ranges.
If a car held gas worth of 750mi of driving and towing would reduce it to 500mi, and your actual driving distance was significantly less than both, the difference would be unnoticed.
If a car held gas worth of just 500mi with extremely well optimized aero and driveline loss minimization and highly efficient regen, and a towed trailer would absolutely ruin that, and your driving distance was too close to the diminished range, you will notice that.
If your EV held like 12500kWh of charge for like 3000 miles of range, and it was mostly for Costco runs, towing range penalties will not be among your top concerns.
It’s also the part that if you go from 400 miles to 200 miles between 5 minute gas fill ups, eh. But doubling 20-30 minute charges? Super annoying.
But boy does my model Y tow tiny trailers well.
The EV trucks usually do more like 30-40 minute charges due to the large battery. But also, gas vehicles don't do 5 minute fillups either, AAA says average is about 15 min.
> But also, gas vehicles don't do 5 minute fillups either, AAA says average is about 15 min.
What? It takes about 3 minutes to add 350 miles of range to my gas vehicle.
When people stop to refuel on a road trip they typically stop for ~15 minutes. According to AAA, who has no vested interest in making an argument on refueling times of gas vs electric, unlike commenters in discussions like this.
3 minutes on a gas pump? Slower than diesel.
In my little commuter car with a 40l tank the fastest I’ve ever filled up was 6 minutes.
That's part of the answer, but the other part is that towing is going to reduce range significantly regardless of your fuel. With a gas or diesel vehicle that's not a big deal, because you can fill back up in 5 minutes or less. With an EV, it takes 20+, and the fast charging locations are less plentiful than gas stations. If you're not towing, that doesn't matter too much, but when you have to charge 2-3 times as often due to towing, it becomes a real issue.
Fast charger stations also rarely make allowances for cars with trailers. You often have to detach the trailer in order to get into the charging bay or park across multiple.
Not to mention you can't really charge while having a trailer.
This would only make sense if the EV efficiency gain were due to lightness of the vehicle or better aerodynamics. It's definitely not the first, and don't imagine the second is a big factor but maybe I'm wrong. I'd even expect EV to help here because a heavy trailer takes more energy to get moving that can be partially recouped when regen-braking.
Is it just that these EV trucks don't have multiple gears to tune themselves for towing? Like how many EV cars are geared for city speeds but suffer on the highway. I know dual-motor ones have different ratios, but that's still 2 speeds vs 6-10. Edit: Could also be about engine tuning.
The second is in fact a big factor. The vast majority of a car's drag is aerodynamic drag since it grows quadratically with speed; rolling resistance and stuff are much smaller at highway speeds. In order to compensate for the tiny capacity of batteries, EVs try really hard to squeeze out better efficiency in aerodynamics and other sources. That's why EVs have flush door handles and stuff.
That would explain it if it's large. But if this matters so much, why don't the diesel trucks make all the same resistance/aerodynamics improvements? The only EV-specific advantage there is not needing air intake... again I have to say, intake drag doesn't sound huge but maybe I'm wrong.
The large fleet operators do care about this and do go out of their way to improve aero. Look at a UPS 18-wheeler and you'll see trailer skirts, no bug deflectors, window buffeters, etc.
Ironically, the private owner/operators are most often the ones installing accessories to make their trucks look cool and sacrificing immensely for it.
Vehicles have two primary components of resistance, air drag and rolling resistance. Rolling resistance is a function of weight, and air drag is a function of the frontal surface area (and to a lesser extent the total body surface area). For a small passenger car, rolling resistance is much lower than for a large truck, so they get much greater efficiency gains from reducing air drag. For a large truck, the rolling resistance is so much greater that the gains from reducing air drag are not large. That's why big tractor trailers don't have the same optimized aerodynamics that a tesla or a prius has.
1. No real market pressure — if you cared about fuel burn rate you wouldn't be looking into buying a truck in the first place. EVs on the other hand live or die by their battery range.
2. When optimizing, you want to start with the biggest problem and work your way down. ICEs are so laughably inefficient that improving aerodynamics just won't have that much of an impact.
A large amount of the energy of an ICE is wasted as heat and noise. Some of that is a constant factor that isn't sensitive to load. So when increase load, it doesn't make as much of a difference to energy used.
By contract in EVs, much more of the energy is going towards moving the vehicle and therefore both weight and air resistance greatly affect the amount of energy use.
The heat and noise do scale with how much gasoline you burn. That's part of the whole ICE being less efficient than battery in terms of input chemical energy vs output mechanical energy. It cancels out when you're calculating regular vs towing range. The engine is the same efficiency either way.
Oh, it's not the same efficiency either way though, got some good explanations elsewhere
You can’t recoup the braking energy when the trailers have their own brakes.
True that
I'm confused by where efficiency comes into this.
The efficiency is usually defined as the energy the car can use to move itself over the energy going in (electrical, or chemical for gas). If an ICE is 20% efficient then using 5 units means you get one unit out. Towing a trailer that doubles the load means you need 2 units out, which means you need 10 units in. So you get half the range either way.
The engine doesn't get more efficient just because you hook a trailer to it: it's still 20% efficient regardless.
ICE engine efficiency is not a flat figure, it varies by RPM and load.
“20% efficient” is like an EVs “270km range” - how far you can actually drive an EV depends on temperature, speed, etc.
I think you're missing the cost of ownership in your efficiency calculation. EV's without incentives cost a lot compared to ICE so much so that the savings don't equate usually until I hear year 4 of ownership. Now that's getting better I mean look at the new Bolt or Ford Fathom 30k Retail usually (which I think is where there's a lot of room in small midsize trucks and EV's)
> EV's without incentives cost a lot compared to ICE
This is highly variable. My Lightning was cheaper than the ICE version I had been shopping for. It has been better for my wallet from day 1. And it has depreciated less. The credits did distort the market for a while, though, that is for certain.
>So the better your efficiency, the worse you are at towing
The fuck?
best explanation of towing I've heard great job.
Once I discovered that the entire EV battery holds only 2 gallons-of-gas-worth of energy (roughly about 65kwh) , all of the range issues made a lot more sense.
Half the range for 1/20 the energy is a win no matter how hard you spin it.
Not when you are towing
Drivers care about range and cost per mile. The EV is better for one and worse for the other, not strictly better.
I don’t think this is true at all. If towing the trailer doubles the energy required at the wheels (and both engines maintained the same efficiency under the additional load) then both ranges would be halved.
In practice, diesel engines can become more efficient under additional load, and it obviously varies between models but it’s not a 16% vs 50% difference like your example.
The reason EVs don’t tow well is they don’t have a high enough range to begin with. Diesels have nearly double the starting range of an equivalent EV, and storing additional fuel on board is an option.
Getting some downvotes on the above. I’d appreciate if those who disagree explain why they disagree.
The anti-EV crowd is dominated by people with very strong political ideology, I wouldn't take the downvotes personally.
So the EV still beats the ICE vehicle threefold (2 units vs 6 units), it just _feels_ worse (half as efficient as without a trailer) so you declare it _is_ worse.
With that type of reasoning, let me guess, the competitor you work for is General Motors?
EV beats ICE in isolation but without just as much charging stations as petrol stations the advantage is theoretical. Also you need faster charging too (I heard BYD latest tech can do this, can Tesla just license?)
A federal law could easily fix this though, but you would need an administration that cares about climate change or at least about EV
I think the whole thing about climate is kind of disingenuous but that's another topic. Mining the minerals for EV's is utter strip mining and terrible. China is selling it's future away. Look at the story of Mountain Pass Mine in California and do 20-50x that in China at less efficiency.
Efficiency was brought up to explain the real problem, range. I didn't fill up between Reno and SF in my F350 towing a massive trailer and still had plenty of fuel to spare. A cybertruck would've barely made it past Sacramento with a much lighter load and would've taken much longer to fill up.
Actually from Tahoe to Sac is probably one of the better stretches to pull that off, it’s all downhill.
That doesn’t change the gist of your comment however - which is correct. (I’m a happy Bay Area Rivian owner who’s made that trip often)
Tahoe to Sac for sure isn't bad. The uphill section before that adds 2-3 gallons by itself when I'm towing though (compared to a flat route the same distance and speeds). IIRC net fuel economy winds up being similar to a flat stretch (even the downhill stretch burns a lot of energy in your brakes and has enough flat and uphill segments -- slightly ameliorated with regenerative braking, but I don't think it moves the needle enough).
How is your Rivian by the way? Is it in any way comparable to a cybertruck or is it just far and away better?
IMO it is worse. And I thought I said where i worked in my original comment. You just can't get the range to work on EV's and towing (my personal opinion) large pickups have big gas tanks and it's quick and easy to fill up. It's all about ergonomics. Yes an EV with a full battery vs a ICE with a full tank EV will always be more 'efficient' but day to day it doesn't add up.
Ergonomics and ease of use are why people get cars. Ergnomics right now to me are reason why EV's in America don't sell well. Infrastructure. If every apartment complex and shopping mall had chargers or we had a novel way to charge a battery like an ICE engine then yeah it will take off. Culturally though I think we just love gas stations, emissions and pollusion.
> Ergonomics and ease of use are why people get cars.
It's why I got my EVs, for certain. It would be hard to convince me to go back to the inconvenience of a gas vehicle at this point. I'm hooked.
They put the competitor they work for in their comment, it was not edited, it was there when you posted this reply.
Excellent sleuthing, either way.
Yes, it was a dig at GM.
The topic is a now-discontinued EV truck, or two of them if you're counting the Lightning, and a real measured range drop when towing. And GM makes EV trucks too. So can we please make this honest and not a fanboy fight?
Dude, your comment does not compute.
Care to clarify with actual math? We are a technical audience here.
The charging port is on the rear of the Cybertruck, which means if you have a trailer attached, you would have to find a charger with a long enough cable, or one that lets you pull all the way through.
If the charging port were on the front of the vehicle, you could pull straight in, but now your trailer is probably blocking traffic.
Of course you could disconnect and reconnect the trailer, which adds an extra 5-10 extra minutes to your 15-40 minute charge time depending on your battery level.
In Europe at least newer Tesla charging stations are drive through charging stations in pairs. Unless it is crowded, the trailer is parked in the charging spot behind you. Only if it is crowded do you have to disconnect.
Pulling a trailer with an EV is very common around here (Norway).
Lol it's like that awfully stupid design choice of Apple charging the pencil by physically connecting it into the ipad charging port
Aging Wheels on YouTube basically concluded that EV towing from a handling perspective is actually quite superior, but the charging and range is so much worse that depending on what you're doing it's likely a dealbreaker.
His channel is a highly recommended watch for anyone who is curious. He also did some very easy to understand tests of range for towing comparing the impacts of the weight of what you're towing vs the wind resistance.
How do I pull into a charging station when I'm towing a camper?
some of the newer locations have clearance for one camper . otherwise you have to take up extra space or unhitch .
Range is cut in half for starters.
We have Rivian charging stations in Montana and Idaho that have pull through bays.
I've seen pull through charger spots at the Rivian stations where I charged my VW.
The top comment says that the cybertruck is neat?!?!?! TS;dr. Is there a sort order that improves HN comments?
China (e.g. BYD et al) is basically banned from selling in your USA country. They will not eat your lunch there.
Everywhere else on the planet, though? Most certainly.
> I've heard there's power stations with pull throughs but havent' seen them personally.
FWIW Rivian has pull through charging stations along I-5, so they do exist. In general, their charging infrastructure is very reliable, uses renewable energy (matching), and is fast (even for my non-Rivian EV) and is not associated with a fascist.
> Like I said I work for a competitor (GM) and I fear China is going to eat our lunch.
AFAIK outside of trucks GM is mostly a reseller of chinese cars these days.
> I agree with Elon now that SpaceX and Tesla are the 'same' company
Why? Doesn’t make any sense to me although there is much speculation as to why Musk wants to merge them.
I mean the synergy is there to do some amazing stuff with vehicles.
I don’t see it. The roadster stuff isn’t going to lead to any mass market or even niche profitable product for a very very long time if ever.
I could pick nearly any two random companies and come up with equally wild speculative synergies.
People intuit cost per mile, if states stop making it illegal for Tesla to charge less insurance themselves with FSD, it’s possible they win.
China can produce 7M more vehicles annually than the entire world (including them) needs, so the world has to decide whether to give up all their manufacturing to let china do it, or china has to increase worker’s rights and pay so that they can afford to buy more vehicles (their currency and financing tactics essentially reduce purchasing power at scale to fund their manufacturing infrastructure).
It'll likely be both
Towing with EV isn’t exactly truck or Tesla problem. So I kinda agree for those particular cases it’s pretty bad choice. But most don’t do that and just like big cars with utility.
> Towing with an EV is terrible.
Why? I saw a Cybertruck towing a Porsche 911 racing a Porsche 911 and winning. That seems like decent torque.
Range is the problem, of course.
All EV trucks suck at pulling, so that's a category problem. It's designed to ride like a car, as truck dynamics of leaf spring suspension on a solid rear axle isn't actually good technically. The feel, though, is a personal preference. It is not a hobby nor a toy: it is fully functional as a truck other than for pulling long miles. It is way more capable than other trucks on certain dimensions. Other trucks are outrageously expensive with similar features. I feel like you are biased.
How do you not understand the trickle down effect of motorsports, given that you work for a competitor? The tech in the roadster trickles down to normal cars (e.g., its drivetrain advancements), and possibly to off-planet rovers (Earth is the brutal case to test the equipment on, but I don't know enough about the potential to reuse here).
>there's power stations
you lost me here, laughing. Nobody calls them that. You’ve never driven an EV long distance, much less actually towed with one.
I’ve towed 5000+ lbs, including a mid-size SUV on a trailer, cross-country with another EV half of a dozen times. Stopping a lot is bit tedious, but it drives so well. The Rivian and Silverado both have big packs and work well. The Lightning didn’t have enough range for long-distance towing.
Moving a trailer around in town or taking a boat or camper to a lake nearby would be comfortable and the torque makes the drive effortless.
5,000 lbs is not some kind of grand feat.
A 3.6L V6 can do that easily and they are dime a dozen.
Yeah I don't get the brag 5k lbs is nothing. That's like 450lbs of tongue weight. I've pulled that with a toyota corolla.
If you stay in first gear and avoid long downhills, you can tow almost anything with almost anything.
I did some towing of loaded ~1500lb trailers with a 1.6 liter Corolla twenty years ago and it was sort of OK... Not great, not terrible. Requires some patience and some extra planning ahead.
As much as I dislike Musk, it was nice to see someone try something that didn't look identical to every other car/truck on the road.
This is exactly how I feel.
Personally I enjoyed its aesthetics, though I wish it was better executed as a vehicle I could drive regularly.
This take is widespread on this venture capital fan forum, but it's both incorrect and a retreat. The Cybertruck was poorly thought out, sold teribly, and is now dead. By example it has discouraged future diversity in automotive design.
Good design that breaks the mold and then succeeds for that reason is what changes the world. Bad design that starts from the desire to be different without understanding the forces that led to the preexisting equilibrium is what we got. If you start out with hundreds of billions of dollars you can fake it for much longer, but if your premise is fundamentally economically incorrect then it will only last as long as you can subsidize it.
It is impossible for someone's statement of preference to be incorrect. You may differ in your opinion, but the gp is not wrong for having their own opinion.
I read their comment as meaning, "If you really care about design that doesn't look like anything else, you should be wary of the Cybertruck, as its commercial failure actually discourages future innovation in automobile design."
I don't know how someone could possibly read my comment in any other way in good faith.
They weren't stating their preference for the form of the vehicle itself. They were stating their preference for designs that break the mold. But if what you desire is cars that break the mold, the Cybertruck has set the world back.
> It is impossible for someone's statement of preference to be incorrect.
I prefer to believe that this statement is incorrect.
I am tired of grey painted eggs too. The design language has gone downhill.
My understanding is more that economy and safety standards have driven us towards these aerodynamic and impact absorbing shapes. I may be quite wrong though!
The cybertruck had good enough safety ratings, but kinda just decided to not care about the aerodynamics and economy side. Which freed Elon up a lot in terms of style.
Personally, I also agree that it was refreshing to see something bold out there on the road. It's just that the final product looked just 'off' enough to make it look bad in the end.
Like, it's wheel base is about 6 inches too long and the ride height is about 6 inches too low, making it look a bit toddler-y to my eyes. The bed was also just not practicable and too small (something I see on a lot of trucks these days). The speed was good, the torque was great, the giant screen you can't feel when driving was not. The seats were uncomfortable for my build.
Overall, the car was a statement, one that just barely missed the mark to my eyes, but it did miss
The US safety ratings are incredibly easy to game. I have a sibling who used to be a crash test engineer, and we used to get bored of them endlessly ranting about it at family gatherings.
In many other countries it wasn’t even street legal because it couldn’t meet minimum safety standards.
Curious to hear any examples. In my experience, the US has the biggest, most beautiful safety standards of all.
If this thing had good safety ratings, then there is something wrong with those ratings.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/18/tesla-cyb...
> The bodywork of the vehicle is particularly problematic: the sharp-edged, rigid stainless steel panels of the Cybertruck violate EU safety regulations, which primarily serve to protect vulnerable road users.
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Cybertruck-remains-banned-in-Ge...
The real issue is that every car maker tries to be as global as possible so they default to mostly safe and flat and boring designs.
And that's not just in cars but technology, furniture, lighting choices, clothing, etc, we're just converging to the same styles globally.
No more flat primer gray cars.
That’s a platform we can all get behind.
Except it is very ugly and the triangle profile created a impractically large windshield and caused the bed cover to completely block the rear window when closed.
Ugly is subjective. Most people probably find it ugly, though personally, I never did.
The functional design certainly needed work.
Thr angular Cybertruck design was actually not primarily for show. It comes from the fact that its body is made from cold-rolled, full-hard stainless steel that can't be stamped into arbitrary shapes. Ordinary car bodies are made from steel that can be stamped but is not stainless, so they require paint.
The original design was that the body would be made from these panels. The exoskeleton structure.
The Cybertruck that was released did not have that, instead the panels are just normal body parts connected to a standard car frame underneath - like any other car.
Most cars use a unibody design and there's no frame underneath it all. The body is the frame.
Most pick up trucks are body-on-frame style.
The Cybertruck is a hybrid. There is an aluminum frame for the tow hitch and battery pack, but the body panels are also structural (unibody).
L-Shaped phones also don't work, despite the novelty.
Nice? It's a machine thst kills pedestrians. I rather no one try anything different if that keeps pedestrians safer.
They didn't go for looks though. The whole premise was ease of manufacturing. An interesting idea that soon proved to be invalid. But they pushed forwards anyway for some reason (and we all know that reason).
I prefer not to drive next to dangerous art projects.
Instead they ripped off the design of a garbage container.
Meanwhile all other Tesla models look exactly the same. Doesn't help that people buy them like the other appliances in their lives, meaning that they're almost all white too.
I remember when this thing came out how Walter isaacson came out with his biography treating it as if it was Steve Jobs envisioning the personal computer, celebrating the design process as if the cybertruck’s success was a foregone conclusion.
I lost all my respect for isaacson at that time as it was clear he’d entered a bubble himself.
This also seems along with a lot of other recent moves to reveal that money is getting tighter over there.
IIRC Issacon was sleeping with Musk’s mother while he was writing the book too.
That’s wild, I’ve never heard that. And to be clear my issue was not that I’m a perma Elon hater, it was Isaacson’s total impartiality to this biography and seeming desire to get swept up in the bubble which has at least in part been debunked.
I’ve heard that before but all searches come up completely blank, unsurprisingly
Oh, what could have been. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tesla-electric-pickup-truck-...
I want an electric El Camino.
Isn't that kind of the dream of Slate? I reserved two, btw, hard agree.
I think you're about to get something similar with the Ford Fathom.
Who wouldn't?
I can't find the post where the guy wanted something like Uber, but the driver shows up in a beat up pickup truck, and just agrees with everything you say, "Hell yeah, brother!"
If you build it, they will come.
Yet again I consider the disparities between the US market, as described by commentors, and the UK market. Cybertrucks never made it to road legality here, and would probably have required an HGV license (if the maximum manufacturer permitted vehicle+load weight is over 3500kg).
The US style pickup is pretty rare. There are some Ford Ranger/Raptors, which look comically large but are apparently smaller than the common F150 (??). People who need a truck bed get a Ford Transit or similar with the bed variant.
Agricultural use cases are handled with actual tractors (who can use the cheaper "red" diesel!)
The pickup in the US is a staple of the plumber, roofer and other tradesmen, and as you say; this use case as a tradesman’s tool is broadly filled by the panel van in Europe.
To some extent you even see this in New York too. Certainly there’s a need for these vehicles in rural areas where road conditions may be poor or absent altogether and the work needs done regardless.
The cybertruck on the other hand isn’t a work vehicle, it’s bought by the same people who buy the super kitted out models and who have no interest in using it for work, let alone taking the thing off road.
Ultimately I think of it as the modern Delorean, but I don’t think it will engender the same level of good will when it ages out and becomes less common due to the increasingly negative profile of Musk and his connections to the politics in which the vehicle was created.
Basically every trade in Europe seems to use either vans or vehicles like a Mercedes Sprinter with a flatbed (don't know the proper term. Those still seat 3 people and have a huge bed, all with a regular license.
It can be, if you let it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxus_T90 (EV version)
Could be: https://www.slate.auto/en
If their range was better this would be my next vehicle purchase…
If you would be using it just locally, as opposed for road trips, note that it has an LFP battery. LFP batteries are perfectly happy to be always charged to 100% and discharged down to 10% (lower is OK but most people want to keep some spare in case they aren't able to charge when they expected to).
Lithium nickel batteries suffer accelerated aging at high charge and at low charge, so it is usually recommended to stay in the 80-20% range, only going to 100% shortly before a road trip.
A Slate with a 200 mile range operated 100-10% would give you 180 miles between charges. That would be the same range as a lithium nickel battery EV with a 300 mile range operated 80-20%.
I only have one car at a time (not married). I frequently visit family that lives about 80 miles away that live in a charger desert. I used to own a Chevy Bolt and it could get me to those family and back on one 100% charge with a little bit for grocery runs etc. while there. Even that I wish had like maybe another 20 miles of range lol.
What are your use cases that need more range than 200 miles? I used to drive a nissan leaf with 90mi range in southern california and only had to stop to charge outside the home a few times for days where I went between LA and Orange County. Otherwise I never really cut it close - and this was with the slowest wall outlet charging at home.
Personally I live in the Midwest. I make fairly frequent drives of around 200 miles to visit friends and family. I drive a pluggable hybrid. EV charging stations exist at both destinations, but are very spotty in between.
During the winter, range plummets. That 200 isn't getting me all the way from A to B. Having a hybrid fueling option is just much more practical for me.
I'm not saying I couldn't get it done, I could, but sitting for hours waiting for some slow-ass EV charging station in the middle of winter is not bullshit I'm signing up for.
Not that I am trying to argue with you, I'm not, but people have a "gas station mindset" about EVs and it leads to confusion, so let me spell out how this trip would look with a "charging station" mindset:
Leave home at 100%/200mi
Drive to destination (approx 3 hours) arrive with ~0%/0mi
Charge while at destination to 80%/160mi
Begin driving back home with a 20%/40mi deficit of range.
Stop anywhere/anytime after you get below 60%/120mi
Charge for 20%/40mi (~10 minutes)
Complete drive home and fully charge again.
Total extra time on 400 mile trip vs gas (assuming 300 mi tank range, so 1 fill-up): ~5 minutes (or 8 minutes if you stop for a quick charge on the way so you don't have to white knuckle down to 0%).
For cold driving in the winter, it would probably be closer to an extra 20 minutes.
I love my EV, but you're really not being at all realistic here. That's more of a perfect possible case scenario based on numbers from a website, not a real world scenario. I take a ~350 mile drive to Milwaukee in our 300 mile range car (2025 Ioniq 5) and we have to stop three times on the trip in each direction.
You're not actually going to get 200mi from 100% when you have 2 people and baggage loaded and traffic exists, and no one sane would be comfortable arriving with literally 0% battery. Charging stops take minimum 10 minutes just accounting for getting off & back on the freeway; usually more like 30-40 minutes because why would you not just charge back up to 80% since you're stopped anyway? Your destination hotel almost certainly does not have a charger, or if they do they charge an idle fee, so you can't just leave it overnight, so really that has to count as another charging stop.
For a 200mi each way trip, realistically you're talking probably two 30 minute charge stops in each direction. That's not completely unacceptable (eg just have some lunch at one of the stops) but your 5-8 minute quote is absolutely not realistic. A bump up to 300mi range would drop that down to one stop in each direction, which would be a real benefit.
Sorry to be blunt, but if you need to stop 3 times to charge to go 350 miles in an 300 mile range EV, you are doing something severely wrong or there is a problem with your car.
The only way I can make this happen in my head is the combination of driving in freezing temperatures, with the heat blasting the whole time, while doing ~80mph.
Mind you we do trips to Maine in the winter and only have seen ~20% range loss. Heated seats, cruise control at 65, heat on only as needed (about 5-10 minute an hour).
I occasionally drive 300 miles in an EV rated for ~319 miles, and I have to stop once in each direction, but I also have to charge at my destination. There's a Tesla station near there, and the rates are fantastic if you get there before 7 AM.
I keep it at 65 and let the heater do whatever it wants to do so that people are comfortable. Temperature, elevation differences, and wind definitely change things.
There's a section of the drive where I average something like 1.3 mi/kWh on the way up the mountain, but something like 6 mi/kWh on the way down. On the return trip, it's kind of fun to see the guess-o-meter show 110 miles remaining over the course of 25 miles, or have it actually increase.
I'm sure that gas vehicles follow a similar pattern, but I don't pay attention to usage like I do in an EV.
A drop from 80% to 20% in a 300mi car is 0.6 * 300 = 180 miles. It's a 350 mile trip. 350 / 180 = 2 80-to-20 discharges, and that's assuming no little detours for stopping at a cheese store or whatever. So we could do it in 2 stops if we were OK arriving with 20%, but we need some charge at the destination for getting around MKE, so it's three stops. And yeah, we drive 75 because that's the speed of traffic and the HVAC does whatever it does to make us comfortable.
Why are you leaving home with 80% charge and why are you limiting discharges to 20%?
Also using heat instead of seat warmers just hurts you for the same level of comfort.
There are 30-50 mile (>10%) stretches with no fast chargers in WI. I'm not going to risk being stranded if one is broken and I need to make it to the next one. I'm not really interested in nibbling around the edges & hypermiling to save one half-hour stop.
A few things -- I am not op, but I do drive an EV and sometimes drive it through some rural areas.
> Stop anywhere/anytime after you get below 60%/120mi
This is the aspect which isn't really possible in very rural areas. There is nowhere to stop at to charge, or the options are very limited. It's getting better, but it's the reason why people want more range.
Plus, in the midwest, the ranges tank in the dead of winter, due to sub-zero temperatures and headwinds.
> Charge while at destination to 80%/160mi
If you can. I have some family that doesn't have any power near where I park when I visit. I'm also there for less than the _many, many_ hours it would take to get an EV from ~0 to ~80% on a standard 15A/120v outlet.
In one case, they have a pretty big tesla super-charger something like 40 miles from them so I can top all the way up just before I get there if I go slightly out of my way. In the US, we still have a long ways to go in the US before _high current_ charging options are as ubiquitous as gas.
Slow ass ev charging? My f150 charge from almost dead to almost full in 35-40 minutes and it has 300+ mile range and 135kWh battery. And its still a 400v architecture
> Slow ass ev charging? My f150 charge from almost dead to almost full in 35-40 minutes
Unfortunately a lot of people only really have a level1 class charger at home and that's a 10+ hour charge on a F150. Probably somewhere around 5-7 hours for a level 2 charger but that's only a "given" on new construction.
If you live close to a level3 charger than you can get topped up in under an hour but that also isn't as convenient as plugging in when you get home and forgetting about it since you have to drive to the charger.
It's pretty perfect as a 2nd family car (and I may buy it for exactly that if the production model reviews are good) but yeah, it's a tough sell for a primary car with that range. Assuming they manage to meet their sales targets and stay in business, I bet it'll improve rapidly over the next couple of model years.
Exactly. 200mi EPA is essentially 130-150 highway in winter, which is stopping for charging every 2hrs going 65 - not feasible for anyone living in the midwest.
Sort of glad I wasn't tempted to buy a Tesla yute.
Edge Trucks starting next year
I think about this a lot
It looks so smol IRL
most people don’t use the capacity of the pickup trucks on the road today. I’m not going to tell people what to drive, but I know personally a smaller pickup with occasional bed use and better efficiency and parking the rest of the time would be an easy sell.
My '96 Toyota T100 is exactly that. I would never want to downgrade to a modern monster-pickup.
I don't really see the point of them. They can't carry anything, because the back is exposed.
> I don't really see the point of them.
Then you need to get our and do more real work of lots of different types. Exposed bed is often an advantage!
I have a welder, the safety instructions include "Never carry the gas tanks in an enclosed vehicle" -if there is a leak the gas tanks (nitrogen, argon, helium) can quickly displace the oxygen inside and I'll die before I know what happened.
Most things I carry don't need to be inside constantly. A little rain won't hurt anything, I wouldn't want to store anything outside but just a couple hours won't harm most things.
Also it is a lot easier to load things in a truck than a van. I can lift it over the sides (perhaps with a forklift). I can stand up in the back while arranging things - even when it is full I can stand upright.
I have used both trucks and vans to carry things over the years. Both are a compromise - and like all compromises there are negatives where something else would be better. Overall I fall on the truck is better side for what I do most often - but that is overall and I recognize there are good reasons some will choose something else.
> if there is a leak the gas tanks (nitrogen, argon, helium) can quickly displace the oxygen inside and I'll die before I know what happened.
This is something so many people don't realize.
When you hold your breath for too long, that feeling of suffocation isn't caused by a lack of oxygen, but the build-up of CO2.
If you replace the oxygen in a room with an odorless gas non-oxygen gas, your body doesn't tell you. You don't feel like you're suffocating. You just start suffering the effects of lack of oxygen. Dizziness, confusion, lightheadedness, but you likely won't realize anything is wrong. Your judgement and ability to react goes away and you lose consciousness without ever experiencing the desperate urge to breathe.
Another good example of this is when pilots fly too high without supplemental oxygen or adequate cabin pressurization and become hypoxic. They become confused and lose coordination while feeling perfectly fine. By the time they realize something is wrong, they may no longer be able to do anything about it.
Every Saturday I fill my truck bed with garbage cans and dump them at a transfer station across the highway from where I live. (We have no trash service in this rural area). I used to cram bags of trash into the back of my Honda CRV, which worked, but was often messy and stinky. You can hose out the back of a truck bed.
I used to think trucks were mostly useless, but have found that many people have weekly uses that make a lot of sense.
I do question the logic of lifting your truck so high you can't reach into the bed.
A dropside van is usually used for that kind of task in Europe: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/vans/used-vans/dropside
Lifting things in and out is considerably easier when you don't have to lift it over the sides.
> Then you need to get our and do more real work of lots of different types.
I repair farm machinery, I design datacentre networks, and I design and build extremely complex electronic equipment. I'm good for the "real work of lots of different types".
I just don't see the point of a vehicle that gets my tools and equipment rained on.
The rear being exposed makes them bad at carrying things that need to be inside, but it makes them good at carrying things that should be outside.
Also they are much easier to load items with heavy machinery.
If your machinery is that heavy, put it on a trailer.
Tonneau covers on the bed work well.
Not going to load manure into the back of a minivan.
Even a minivan wins in most categories, but they don't have the towing or hauling capabilities that live in the imaginations of many men.
I keep a minivan as a secondary vehicle / "work truck". It tows, I can fit 4x8 plywood or drywall sheets flat on the floor, and drive them around in the rain. Then put the seats back in and take 6 kids to a movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_truck
I live in a rural agricultural area and these are all over the place. Replacing crazy expensive side-by-sides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j76f6E0oOW4
I bought one in the US for $8k for hauling equipment around. I love it. 40mpg, gets the job done.
EV trucks sound good but you can't haul anything heavy or your range plumments. Unless the battery is huge but that is weight. A truck that can't haul is just for show.
Even gasoline trucks are stupid no low end torque, you need to rev it. I had a 6 cylinder Cummins diesel and at 500rpm idle on a hill it could move the 10,000 pound truck up the hill.
I feel like this is less true nowadays. Or at least, less of a concern.
I have a Rivian and my 400mi range gets cut significantly (down to 200 or 300, depending on the trip) when I have 7k lbs on the back, but never enough to stop me from towing. And with good charging in the area, it's a non issue. And waaaaayyyyy cheaper than diesel.
Maybe if I was towing daily, I'd feel different. Your mileage may vary. (Couldn't resist the closer!)
Edit: btw instant torque is a game changer. You can't beat an EV on that front
I used to think this way, but it turns out that EV trucks hold up on range better than one would expect thanks to regenerative breaking. The added weight of cargo requires more energy to get up to speed, but you get most of that back when breaking, so it's not lost energy. Meanwhile, a gas or diesel truck's range plummets when hauling since all the energy used to accelerate the load is lost in breaking. I'm not saying that EV hauling is perfect or a solved problem, but that the trades offs aren't as intuitive as they might seem.
I think regen braking only helps if the load is on the bed. If it's on a trailer, the trailer will have normal breaks and a lot is lost. (Edit: spelling)
It also doesn't help if you have a long freeway trip where you don't brake.
Trailers may not have regenerative braking today, but that's a chicken-and-egg problem; trailers already have wiring hookups, and once EVs become the default for personal vehicles, it's easy to imagine that regenerative braking will become standard.
braking
You should watch this video - aero dominates vs weight (factors very little), especially with strong regen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmKf8smvGsA
+1 recommendation for this video. Also the owner of the channel participated in an EV cannonball run several times. I don't think they made it in one go, but still very cool how they had to plan for the trip and modify the vehicle.
> A truck that can't haul is just for show.
I borrow my brother’s truck all the time to transport various DIY supplies. I could probably get a roof rack for my car for things like plywood and drywall, but borrowing the truck is easier.
Are you from 2010?
My EV has 470PS, it can hauul plenty heavy for long range. Weights 2.2 tons.
Even the Ford F-150 Lightning was already able to pull 4.5t and has a range of 300 miles.
I think you’re missing the second half: or your range plummets.
Theres been plenty of F150L towing tests and the results are… bad. Maybe 100mi of range if you’re towing something big?
I have an f150 lightning. Weight isn't a problem for range you barely notice it. Towing though matters mostly about the number of axels and aerodynamics. I have a small trailer I occasionally tow and it knocks the range to just under half which is... Not great but not terrible either. Running around town towing is fine, but if we were doing long distance (hundreds of miles) I'd probably rent a ice vehicle for it.
But I've done a 600 mile each way trip with the bed fully loaded and it's completely fine
I might be ignorant here as a german but how often are people towing something big 100 miles and more were they do not have time to just charge? I would have said 2-4 times a year (lakelife location far away twice a year?).
I mean for sure, if you are the person who constantly need this, EVs might need a little bit more advantages, but what does an avg F150 owner would tow 100mi every day / regularly?
I would put it like this: many many truck drivers in the US go years without towing a thing. Even work trucks (eg plumbers rarely need to tow anything). But, for the people that do tow, they tow a lot.
And the US is an incredibly large place. West of the Rockies it's essentially empty until you get to the coastal cities. So if you do anything agricultural, or your business is located in the rural places because of local resources (wood, minerals, whatever) you will be towing heavy things long distances.
Fun example of distance: last month I was in Tonopah, Nevada. My spouse wanted to try McDonald's. No problem, the sign on the billboard says there is one nearby (that exact word). It was in Hawthorne. 150km away. Americans, especially rural Americans in the Western states, have a different view of driving distance than Europeans. Bill Bryson was not really joking when he wrote that Americans will drive 60 miles for a taco.
For towing, 75% of truck owners claim to use this feature once a year or never.
More than 60% of truck owners use the bed to haul at least once per month; but it's difficult to determine the percentage who could have used a car instead. A small car can fit quite a few bags of soil in the trunk, for example.
I'm looking foward to the arrival later this month of my 280PS ""compact"" EV (Abarth 600E), which will be roughly as much power as every other car I've owned put together.
First, the intended customers of the Cybertruck don’t need to haul anything; it’s a lifestyle vehicle. Second, EVs have solved the torque problem.
A huge fraction of the truck owners barely (if ever) haul anything, so that's not a dealbreaker for an EV truck.
It just has to look manly and rugged, any actual offroad or hauling capabilities are at best a nice-to-have.
How do you define huge? How do you define "barely if ever"? Do you have any evidence to back your claim?
Some gas engines have low end torque, big block V8s and anything turbo. But yeah if hauling uphill is your thing diesel is a no brainer. It would be great if our half ton and midsize trucks had diesel options but as usual other countries have better options.
Personally I'm going hybrid truck next time. The advantages of electric (torque, 240V inverter) with the flexibility of gas. Payload is lower but I'm hoping they fix that by the time I need a new truck
I get so much joy from seeing these on the road. They are not to my taste, but it’s so nice to see something new on the road.
I still remember years ago seeing one in a grocery store parking lot, with a banana yellow wrap and the Zelda unlock sound as its lock chime. A brief moment of inconsequential joy.
Lastly, having the cyber truck drag race a Porsche 911, while towing a Porsche 911 (and win) has to be one of the best marketing stunts of all time.
As a pedestrian I certainly don’t enjoy being around them, or any of the absurdly oversized American trucks.
As a pedestrian a tesla is the least likely vehicle to actually hit you.
The best collision is no collision.
Ah yes, the Tesla driver, noted for their excellent driving. Let's take a look at the worst drivers by make..
> Tesla: Rank #3 with 42.8 incidents per 1,000 drivers
Ah.
Source? Please don't say LendingTree.
I feel so much anger seeing these on the road.
A bad design that costs too much, the only people who bought these were ideologues committed to the vision of a man responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths, the gutting of the American state, and some of the most destructive politics of hate in living memory.
I celebrate their passing.
Some of us just got one because it’s a fantastic self driving electric family car. I have a family and live somewhere nice, life’s too short to get so wound up about politics. And you’ll still be seeing them on the roads for many years to come :)
This is a pretty heartless thing to say when one person's politics are repsonsible for making many lives so much shorter and more miserable.
Life is certainly too short to support nazis
Not really relevant to this conversation.
completely relevant.
I pity the family of someone who cannot get “wound up” about a man who gleefully dismantled USAID at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives,[^1] ploughed hundreds of millions of dollars into far right politics, and did a fucking nazi salute.
Outside of Mad Max it’s hard to conceive of a more dangerous car to be involved in a pedestrian collision. The cybertruck is a symbol of staggering ignorance and selfishness.
We’ll probably still see them on the roads for many years to come—and laugh at the lickspittle Elon toadies who gleefully bought them, knowing full well what they symbolize.
[^1] https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...
Hear, hear. As much as this man is a lightning rod for rage, it’s still only a tiny fraction of what he deserves for the atrocities he’s committed. I hope he rots in prison.
It's easy to "not care about politics" when they aren't voting to take away your rights.
so privileged. politics is life.
The rest of us assume you’re a supporter and collaborator because you’ve adopted the symbols of hatred. But hey life is too short amirite??
Yeah, why worry about the politics you’re supporting with your money? Presumably you believe you aren’t a likely target for the hate and violence Musk spends that money you gave him advocating for. Must be nice not to have to worry about your or your family’s personal safety or emotional well-being. Thanks for the advice about “getting wound up” over politics.
<< Presumably you believe you aren’t a likely target for the hate and violence Musk spends that money you gave him advocating for.
I am confused. Are you suggesting that parent is a likely target based on their car purchasing habits? If so, US has some fun times ahead.
It's surprising how out of the loop people are if you don't think a new Tesla is a political signal. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt but there is a lot of doubt immediately if I see they have a cybertruck. And if you think that's the rough in the US I assure you in Europe they are likely to think even less of an owner.
Eh, if everything is a political signal then nothing really is. If anything, I find it more problematic that there are people who explicitly think that way. Frankly, that way madness lies. I don't even even drive a Tesla, but that is based purely on its anti-customer-features, reliability and so on.
As for Europe, it is possible. I have not visited in a while so I will take your word for it.
Life's a lot easier when you just close your eyes and pretend the problem disappears, huh?
Have fun driving a Scarlet Letter, bro.
You...you do know who the "bad guys" were in the Scarlet Letter, right?
Probably a better question for Elon's harem of birth-mothers
Again, I'm begging you to go look up a plot summary. Hester is the hero protagonist!
Congratulations, you've rewired the metaphor.
The scarlet letter didn't have "Good guys" and "Bad guys". That was sort of an important theme of the book since the priest himself was the baby daddy.
The main message of the book is "Wearing your choices on your sleeve can be painful in a judgmental world, but is ultimately healing; attempting instead to appear spotlessly moral will tear you apart from inside out"
Now apply to this thread.
I mostly agree it's not as simple as good guys and bad guys, but if anyone's a bad guy it's the most judgmental townspeople and the priest who lets Hester take the full brunt of judgment while he pretends he's squeaky clean.
Hahaha. This is too good. These hateful people are so caught up in their outrage that they don’t realize they’ve become the bad guys.
It is worse. They think their hatred is somehow justified.
Probably every third car in my area is a Tesla.
The drivers are like 98% East Asian or Indian. Like half the cars have a "new driver" or "baby on board" sticker.
Teslas are unpopular in rural areas.
So ironically I think the ideologues (on either side) are the only people NOT buying Teslas.
They're not driving cybertrucks, is the point.
> ideologues committed to the vision of a man responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths
Utterly insane take. Your media sources have filled your mind with poison.
That is literally what happened, even if you refuse to believe it. (Swap “millions” with “hundreds of thousands for now” if it makes you feel better.) Maybe spend some time off Twitter.
I own one. I hate Elon and everything that he has become. I wanted an EV truck that can drive itself on my road trips.
What you do matters more than what you say.
Do you boycott every company with a CEO that you don't agree with politically? Musk is much more open about it than others but you'll find that most of them are fine with screwing over everyone for their own (personal+company) benefit. For example, pretty much every major ICE automaker lobbies against EVs, including ones that sell EVs. Most people would be better off with an EV. They don't need to be expensive (see BYD) and the charging situation would improve with higher adoption rates.
Agreed, so please spare us the virtue signaling and go start an EV company that makes better cars than Tesla
You sound very ideologue yourself.
Someone with a trillion dollars being an ideologue is different than a middle class person being one. Wealth is power and power brings with it ethical responsibilities. Always.
It's absolutely valid to expect more from politicians and people who hold power over our lives than we do from regular people.
I hope you find peace and a better use of your time
Either missing /s or you’re one of those “terminally online” people that the interwebs keeps telling me about.
This is nothing but comic villain energy. Sorry for whatever happened to you.
I get that.
I'm not an Elon fan in the least, but it does feel like most cars are designed by committee and converge on a few well-defined shapes and segments. And they sell a ton of them, so sure, of course.
But there's certainly some charm when you see a weirdmobile that doesn't conform and somehow got by the bean counters and into existence. The MINI Clubvan, for people who needed something compact and cargo-focused. The Cadillac CTS-V wagon, for people who wanted to haul ass ... and the family. The Toyota MR2, which felt like Toyota engineers decided "let's take these Corolla parts and build them in the shape of a Ferrari".
With the high costs of certifying a new car for sale it seems like we see fewer and fewer of these oddballs, and that feels like a shame.
So even though I'd never personally consider driving a poorly rendered dumpster from a 1980s video game, perhaps the world is a bit more interesting due to its existence.
I saw someone sleeping on one on a highway. They should be regulated out of existence.
I agree. I was personally getting really sad on how all design appeared to be converging on one 'allowed' shape without considering any other possible -- ah ha - angles. I posted on this before, but I will repeat it here, because it is relevant.
Those cars did have uses, but those uses revolved around drawing attention ( think advertising ). Whenever I saw one in my neck of the woods, they were selling something.
> Lastly, having the cyber truck drag race a Porsche 911, while towing a Porsche 911 (and win) has to be one of the best marketing stunts of all time.
I suppose, if you don't really like cars much, this was interesting. No one debates the ability for EVs to have absurd 0-60, 0-100 times, but there's almost no overlap between why you'd buy a Cybertruck versus a 911 besides status symbol, which gets back to... maybe it's neat, if you don't really care about cars much.
Agreed. Even if the design is polarizing, has quality issues, whatever about elon and politics, it is refreshing to see something different and distinctive on the road in a sea of blobby SUVs and extended cab trucks.
Joy. Heh. What they remind me of is the atrocities that Musk committed, and also that the driver probably doesn’t give one iota of a fuck about them.
Can we just make the world a better place by bringing back dopey, happy cars like the Cube?
Kids really love these things and get very excited to see them on the road.
They are going to be very valued collectors items in 30 years once the kids of today have enough disposable income to buy whichever are left roadworthy by then.
My experience is the opposite. My kids, and any friends of theirs riding with us, will boo whenever they see them on the road
Emotions from both ends of a spectrum are positive indicators of future's collection value.
Unless you’re Ferrari or Porsche, you don’t want to be in the situation where your vehicle has future collectors’ value. That usually just means it didn’t sell very well (rarity).
Let’s keep in mind that Tesla invested in this truck to be the next F-150, which is the best-selling vehicle in the USA for the past multiple decades.
You’re talking about different things. A failure from a manufacturer perspective can be a major success from a collector perspective (see also the DeLorean).
Even the hated Edsel is worth quite a bit today.
Of course it might be harder to keep a Cybertruck running for 50 years due to all the computerized components. Restorers will probably be relegated to rebuilding Cybertruck bodies with new components.
> Of course it might be harder to keep a Cybertruck running for 50 years due to all the computerized components. Restorers will probably be relegated to rebuilding Cybertruck bodies with new components.
Really no different than any classic car, really. GM isn't selling OEM parts for a '57 Chevy, for example. If you need replacement parts on those, nowadays, you're likely going to specialty manufacturers given there really aren't any "parts cars" around anymore.
For combustion engine parts all you need is metal work tools, not locked down proprietary software and electronics. My dad has a 1954 Citroen b11 that he’s kept alive and humming since he got it in the late 60s.
True, I just imagine that it will be harder for non-OEMs to make replacement electronics given how locked down Teslas are.
We'll have to wait and see. I honestly kind of doubt that will be true. There's all kinds of Tesla hacking that's been going on for years. It's possible to get a Tesla motor running without any external Tesla electronics through aftermarket solutions that carry support from the vendors.
I didn’t know that, that’s surprising, but I haven’t been following it that closely; I’ve just occasionally seen stories about Tesla shutting off service for DIYers. In that case maybe it won’t be so difficult.
I am talking about how value to collectors is irrelevant for most automakers.
Tesla’s corporate leadership would be much happier if the Cybertruck was selling 100,000 units a year and was not at all a collector’s item.
That’s not relevant to what the person you were responding to was talking about. They were talking about collectors.
And I’m talking about how their discussion of collectors is no consolation to the people at Tesla who were trying to make a mass-market profitable and successful vehicle.
I don’t have to talk about exactly what my comment parent is talking about in all facets. This isn’t a courtroom cross-examination.
Your comment is a non sequitur then. It reads like you’re just tacking on an irrelevant comment based on your personal feelings about the company.
If anything the original discussion of collectors was the non-sequitur. How this relates to the business of automobiles is far more relevant to the topic and article.
I guess I can’t really complain. They were making an interesting point about collectors that opened up a new line of discussion, in which I learned a couple of things. But that seemingly wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t responded to your comment, so somehow your non-sequitur response to his non-sequitur seems to have been necessary to generate that discussion. So thanks?
You’re welcome!
In its time, the Edsel was more meh than hated. Mainly people didn't buy them because they were essentially pricier Fords and it was a recession year, and Ford threw in the towel for Ford-internal political reasons. The looks were not as much of an issue as people think today. It certainly didn't have the same political associations.
Good book on the subject: https://www.sup.org/books/history/disaster-dearborn
Thanks for the clarification. My understanding was that the quality issues and exaggerated features drew a lot of mockery at the time. That’s not always enough to prevent something from succeeding (other polarizing vehicles like the Nissan Cube did OK) so the recession/internal politics angle makes sense.
> Of course it might be harder to keep a Cybertruck running for 50 years due to all the computerized components
And all the well-documented reliability and quality issues.
Considering the recent headlines about the decompilation and reverse engineering scenes, I doubt it!
If anything, the centralized control units of modern cars may make this sort of thing easier. A 2000’s car has more distributed pieces of vehicle control units (more similar to microcontrollers) while a modern EV built in the style of a Tesla has fewer compute components.
So in 50 years you’ll have some kind of recompilation scene where those computers get replaced, almost like how people replace their router software with OpenWRT or the people at vintage computer festivals who stand up reverse engineered AOL Instant Messenger services.
That’s not such a big issue for restorers, there were also extreme quality problems with the Edsel.
1990s F150s are selling for much more than their original new price, with low enough miles.
Best selling truck of all time. Not really about rarity.
Clearly this behavior is not original, but taught. Kids don't "boo" things out of nowhere. They are indifferent as hell to things on their own sure, but not a CB ...
>Kids don't "boo" things out of nowhere
Not all HNers are good parents
Very clearly behavior introduced and encouraged by the parents, driven by politics, and not the merits of the object itself. Though it is an interesting commentary on the extreme, enforced conformity and politicization-of-everything we see in the world today.
Absolutely. I am sad for these kids and their families. This is not how you raise curious, open-minded children.
What evidence do you see that "everything" is politicized? Elon was the largest single donor in the US midterm elections by far... Seems like he politicized things himself.
If the Nazi salute wasn't political enough. Children going through WWII in their history classes might dislike Cybertrucks independently of their parents.
It's always an excuse and everyone else's fault that things are politicized. The same people telling us to leave every social problem to the Invisible Hand get fussy when it actually manifests.
> The same people telling us to leave every social problem to the Invisible Hand get fussy when it actually manifests.
Yep. This is the world the Supreme Court handed us with Citizen's United. Now that money is speech, we all have to accept that when we buy things, our money can be used against us.
This is the world they wanted, and if you hate cancel culture, then you need to get on board with fixing the damage from Citizen's United... not raging against regular people who are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, and using their money as speech.
What you buy is your politics now. It fucking sucks, but look at it with clearer eyes.
Totally, what kid would boo something without being preconditioned to hate it? Humans can never separate concepts in there heads. Either you’re good or you’re evil. Have news for you all, we are all both. Not saying I support that guys behavior, but he’s done some impressive stuff to further mankind.
Quite something how many posts here seem to default to "Those children who do not share my opinion, they must have been brainwashed. It's the only explanation."
I mean, fair point. But it sure does smell like the original commenter's kids have been brainwashed. "Booing" a car or having a hateful attitude towards a car without any external influence? I actually don't think the Cybertruck looks good - at all. But all my kids are amazed by it. And we haven't spoken to them at all about Elon.
> and not the merits of the object itself
This is interesting to say given that by most objective measures of what constitutes a good truck, the cybertruck is a bad truck.
Edit: the stupid bed cover gets stuck when exposed to a not abnormal amount of dirt. In dry climates the thing shocks you every time you touch it. People regularly are slicing their hands open randomly on it. Body panels routinely fall off. Accelerator pedal getting stuck triggering recall. Shape of the bed making it impossible to actually carry anything normal and rectangular, 100 mile tow range when putting actual weight on it, bad visibility. I've seen some hilarious videos of them getting stuck in road conditions my Yaris could handle. I've even seen someone catastrophically damage the wheels by turning them left and right rapidly a few times.
A good truck can carry things in the bed and tow something a long way. It can drive on and off a dirty worksite without critical components failing or getting dug in or snapping an axle. Or ok fine, the Houston family truck special, it should at least be able to take the cooler and kids to the beach without getting stuck.
The cybertruck is not a good truck. It may be a good something else, status symbol or something, maybe it's comfortable to drive, I don't particularly care, it's simply not a good truck.
> objective measures of what constitutes a good truck
There is literally no such thing. But regardless, in this subthread, we are discussing the response of children to the pure aesthetics of the truck (or lack thereof) vs. the coached, politicized reaction to what it is claimed to represent.
There are plenty of objective measures of what makes a good truck. Payload capacity. Towing capacity. Towing range. Stopping distance when at GVWR. Stopping distance when towing at or Max Towing Capacity. Does standard lumber fit in the bed with or without the tailgate open. If it requires the tailgate to be open, does it provide factory installed tiedowns to be able to safely carry cargo with the tailgate open.
There are, of course, plenty of subjective measures such as NVH, amenability to modification through the aftermarket, total cost of ownership, offroad capabilities, etc.
From everything I've seen, some of which OP mentioned in an edit, points to the Cybertruck being a terrible truck seemingly designed by folks who have never owned/used a truck. And again, that is ignoring Elon's politics.
No there's not.
> Payload capacity.
Fighting against truck size, MPGs
> Towing capacity.
Fighting MPGs, possibly diesel prices
> Towing range.
Only matters on electrics, everyone else goes to the gas station.
> Stopping distance when at GVWR.
I don't max my truck out, and I don't really think others should, either.
Anyway, maybe you can see that objectively, I'd rather have a Nissan Hardbody than whatever Superduty Diesel you have in mind.
Or, it's just objectively ugly and cringe, which it is.
Nothing about design or looks is objective. Lots of people like the design. Dont assume your opinion is objectively 'right'.
No, it objectively failed. That's why they are not going to make it anymore. "Lots of people" do not like it.
N64 graphics vehicle.
Sure but kids don’t generally boo at ugly cars, they just don’t really notice them.
I think the cybertruck is orders of magnitude uglier than any other vehicle, so I think it's an expected response.
Old enough to be haters, I guess.
Mostly I've seen younger kids love it. I was at the park and a little girl saw a Cybertruck pull up -- "Look, Dad, it's from the future!"
I think Cybertruck is probably ultimately a failure, but the amount of hate it gets when they are at least trying to push things outside of the normal makes me sad. The amount of negativity towards anything new that's not perfect is insane.
Look, there is "trying to push things outside of the normal" and then there is "completely misunderstanding the purpose of a half-ton truck." I say this despite that fact that the Cybertruck, from a size perspective, it straddles the line between half-ton and 3/4-ton, and it is a complete utter non-starter as a 3/4 ton for several reasons.
If the CyberTruck were the size of a Honda Ridgeline or Ford Maverick, I think truck folks (who skew conservative) would look at it a lot less derisively. There are entire swathes of the half-ton truck market that the Cybertruck simply cannot compete in due to a seeming fundamental misunderstanding by the design team of what the vehicle needs to be capable of and amenable to. This is especially evident in the fleet/work truck market where the unibody design immediately shuts out folks who need to put an aftermarket bed replacement (think plumbers, welders, and other trades).
It straddles the 1/2 to 3/4 ton segment in terms of specs, but it is fundamentally impossible to tow a 5th wheel or gooseneck trailer with a Cybertruck.
Again, there is "think different" and there is "misunderstand the market."
Yeah, a swing and a miss for sure.
Not only was it not perfect, it was a total failure - they are stopping all production
There is so much you are hiding behind "not perfect" and I think you know that.
> the amount of hate it gets when they are at least trying to push things outside of the normal makes me sad. The amount of negativity towards anything new that's not perfect is insane.
A significant portion of the hate they get is for what they represent and who they’re from, not because they’re “new” or “different” or “not perfect”.
[flagged]
You guys are living in a different universe. I can get hating Elon, but mediocre? Really? Completely absurd.
I mean the things you acknowledge people hating him for probably overlap considerably with the things I'm thinking of when declaring him mediocre. To pick just one: Think of the boring CEOs who work hard to instill and drive an inclusive culture at their companies, and who make sure their people are treated as human beings. You haven't heard of any, because they're not out there trying to be an entertainment personality.
Outside of hoarding wealth, I haven't seen much evidence that Elon is particularly good at anything.
What wealth did he hoard? His wealth is all in his ownership of companies he lead to great success.
He just spend 400 million dollars on the election, half of this in texas alone.
Spending is the opposite of hoarding
He doesn't seem very politicallly...effective.
But anyway, I don't think it's fair to say he "hoarded" wealth. It's all from ownership in companies he led, or selling stock in said companies. It's not like, I don't know, post-soviet Russian oligarchs or Carlos Slim or something, who you could all reasonably say were hoarding wealth.
Doubt you had anything to do with that
I’m an ultra lib, despise Elon, hope he faces a jury of peers to answer for all he has done, but this seems like learned behavior. My toddler son thinks they look really good (wife and I think they look atrocious and our anti-Elon bias doesn’t help).
>My kids, and any friends of theirs riding with us, will boo whenever they see them on the road
Because adults around them groomed them for those actions. Kids don't just start booing at objects out of the blue, they parrot the learned behavior of the adults around them.
Yeah we did
kids do live in a society
And the leaves move when the wind blows.
My kids and their friends play a game where when you see certain cars, you do certain actions. Like "punch buggy" with VW bugs but with a bunch of different cars. Cybertruck is "cyberslap" and you get to slap someone when you see one.
I live in Dubai. There is no lack of super cars on the streets. The other day a cybertruck was parked outside my window and this group of teenagers spend a long time posing in front of it taking group pictures and individual pictures.
You don’t see that with a Ferrari or Rolls Royce.
It is definitely going to be a collectors items, if it isn’t already.
That’s not gonna pay the bills for Tesla, but I guess it’s something.
You know what else you don't see with Ferraris? People lining up to spit on them.
https://youtu.be/L3oO510dyVI
The real deal in case anyone prefers literal spitting.
https://youtu.be/txb79zMKFv4
Kind of like a delorean
I think this is exactly it. They are different and unlike anything else on the road.
It’s certainly not exactly it because the Delorean has an indelible association with a classic film that’s beloved by many. It’s iconic without ever seeing one on the road (and most people have not)
The Cybertruck does not have that quality.
And before that movie, the DeLorean actually had a very similar story - an expensive low-quality car that nobody wanted to buy, founder embroiled in controversy. The reason Doc Brown had the car in the movie was because it fit his image as an untrustworthy mad scientist.
Without BTTF it would absolutely be a minor footnote instead of a major one.
If any movie character gets a a Cybertruck in the next 20 years, it will be a villain, not a sympathetic hero.
Except one looks like a sports car and the other looks like a garbage truck/can.
s/cocaine/ketamine/
There is absolutely no chance these will function in 30 years.
It certainly could, but likely very Ship of Theseus'd. I feel like enough of the parts are DRM'd hard by Tesla you'd need to Frankenstein the thing to do it.
The firmware will be a problem
De Lorean status in the future.
Definitely not, not only is the De Lorean a cooler car (by far) it wouldn't even be a collectors item if it wasn't in one of the most popular movies ever made. The cybertruck has the exact opposite associations, instead of being in a cool movie it's the pet project of one of the most hated humans alive.
Maybe there needs to be a new Back to the Future that uses them instead of a DeLorean:)
I know a teenager who got a Fisker Karma. Maybe he bought the dip.
no one is going to care about this in 30 years.
no way the batteries last that long
I mean the 4680 cells are used in the model Y and the pack assembly isn't that complicated. I don't expect it to be financially ruinous to replace over time.
The software of a smartphone on wheels might be a bit harder to replace.
I mean if LLMs can do now what they do now, I doubt software will be much of a barrier for anything in the far future.
Will they work in 30 years?
I can’t imagine why not. EV’s are generally more reliable than gas/diesel vehicles, and Tesla makes the most reliable EV’s.
I grew up on Big Trak, Kitt, and the Landmaster from "Damnation Alley". The kids are right.
That's because adults taught them that behavior
I think if you were to compare the cybertruck with other things kids like, you'd see that it looks like a hot pile of garbage. There's nothing about it that would attract a kid, it looks like a refrigerator.
I think there's a lot of kids (and parents) being influenced by politics more than pure ascetics.
The classroom of kids Ive seen (my kids attend 3 different schools), all of them are amazed by them - age ranges: 3, 7, 9 all their classrooms loved them. Same with some of the older kids I've been around. They're all boys, I do imagine it's a very boy-friendly car.
I personally don't have a cyber truck, not big on it personally, but never put my own opinions into my kids. The kids may not "like it", but they are amazed by it.
I'm in an area that doesn't really hate Musk, so I think that does have an impact.
I've never met or known a person IRL who cares about Tesla's ownership. I know people who hate Teslas cause they drive in the carpool lane or because they had bad experiences owning one, that's about it.
You must have different kids than I do. Mine point at them and observe that they spotted another dumpster.
I suspect you influenced them to feel this way.
I have two girls; never mentioned Elon, Tesla, nor CT to them.
Both think it looks ugly.
No need to influence most people, IMO. Vehicles are shaped the way they are because the designs have broad appeal in general (familiarity? proportions? trends?). Most of us would find a normal, well-tailored black suit to be appealing and be baffled by avant garde, high fasion men's clothing.
Why should anyone be surprised that a completely novel design isn't appealing to most?
> Vehicles are shaped the way they are because the designs have broad appeal in general (familiarity? proportions? trends?).
Isn’t it mostly fuel efficiency standards and manufacturability? You’ve got a chassis that’s used for like five different models for five years between refreshes, not a lot of room to innovate without driving up all the costs so only the luxury cars can afford to look different.
Most cars are and have been roughly the same shape for decades now. Rare innovations here and there, but largely still hold the same basic shapes across manufacturers and markets.
But that's part of it. Cars look the way they do because that is an efficient shape for something doing the job of "Car"
People who want cars to look different for it's own sake are saying they want worse cars.
Why? Why do those people need their cars to be shittier cars just to look different? What are they after? I bought a car as a toy, but it's average looking and not really special, and that doesn't have to actually impact how much I enjoy it. My previous shitty car was also very much enjoyed.
I don't understand the insistence that it looks "different" as if there is any virtue to a car design that was randomly generated to look different.
That's just good parenting. :)
Do you think so? I'm not arguing here, I genuinely don't know.
My kids are too young for this, but surely there's a tradeoff here. Should you override some of your child's natural wonder because of adult aesthetics (or worse political concerns)? Yes. But how often? I'm not sure the line should be drawn at a truck design. (Although, maybe you're teaching your kid taste, again I'm not sure.)
I was admittedly being a little facetious. It's not surprising to me that kids, especially kids who are at that age where monster trucks, construction equipment, the Batmobile etc. are the coolest things in the world would be drawn to the Cybertruck because it certainly does stand out and look larger than life in a way, like it was ripped from the pages of a comic book. I don't think there's any real harm in that, setting my own feelings about Elon and what he has come to represent aside for a moment. Let them enjoy the weird shiny thing while they're still too young to understand why it sucks. ;)
I wouldn't use disliking Cybertrucks as a proxy for good parenting. You can hate everything a symbol represents and still find the symbol cool, like I think motorcycle clubs are awesome but despise the toxic masculinity stereotype many reproduce.
I suspect you're right. :) I think it's ghastly and poorly engineered/ designed.
14yo probably influenced -me- more than the other direction, though. That one has strong opinions.
This is the same 14yo who when she was younger would delightedly point out every Tesla (then, mostly model S's) she saw on the road. Probably still responding to both aesthetics and politics but it was interesting to see the shift.
Gonna let you in on a little secret:
Every parent influences their children. It's called parenting.
Eh, even a 11 year old kid can see this thing is what a 5 year old kid thinks is "cool".
Same. Mine like calling out "cyber-yuck!"
Yeah. The kids I coach (1st-4th grade) generally call them 'stupidtrucks'.
My toddler saw one and got really excited "Look, Mama, a barn is driving!"
yeah, my kids will call out, look another "Cyberbarf"
This theory backs up my opinion that every rich person who drives an exotic car is just an eight year old who had a Lamborghini poster on their wall growing up
I own a exotic car for the same reason I own mechanical watches. I love the engineering and craftsmanship. (But yes, I had several Lamborghini posters growing up) ;-)
Yeah my 5yo falls in this camp and is resistant to nuanced political discussions about it FOR SOME REASON
I suspect we’re going to discover a depressing future for today’s era of cars. 40 years from now will the Cybertruck software even let you turn it on? When will the last update have been? What servers does it communicate with that’ll end up long since decommissioned?
(FWIW my kids giggle at the Cybertruck and say it looks silly. In a sense they do love them but I’m not convinced they’ll long for one in years to come)
> Kids really love these things and get very excited to see them on the road
Unsurprising, as they look like they were designed by an 8 year old.
> They are going to be very valued collectors items in 30 years
There's going to be 3 owners perpetually going to Cars and Coffee with theirs, rotating with their pristine Pontiac Aztec.
And that's all they'll do with it because there is no way a CyberTruck is going to last 30 years otherwise.
You’re right kids really do love these things: that’s the entire target market.
maybe small kids i guess? teens in my experience mock them gleefully
Every kid I've ever met hates Elon Musk, so I'm 100% sure that this failed product will not be a "collectors item".
> Kids really love these things and get very excited to see them on the road.
Do you have anything empirical to back this up? This feels like someone kind of hoping something is true. It's like the Harley rider sure that everyone thinks they're super cool with their super loud bike.
The Harley example is ironic because little boys are exactly the ones to find that cool
Little kids think crotch rockets are cool. Only the children of Harley owners think Harleys are cool. I mean, you understand there is a whole meme about this right?
In the same way that I'm entirely certain kids don't look at a monstrous mobile trash bin and say "wow, cool!". But the owners of those ugly abominations sure think they look cool.
Every kid I know hates the cybertruck, they literally call it a boomer-mobile.
I'm sure they will hold value as Hitler's paintings do
This is all so sad to me. I was one of the people who jumped at the chance to preorder when it was first announced. People loved to hate on the design, but I feel like a lot of that was just them projecting their hatred of Musk over to the car. I loved the aesthetic and in a lot of ways, it seemed like a dream car for me.
By the time it came out though, Musk started supporting fascism, the price doubled, and the production quality issues took away all the appeal.
I'm not fond of Musk, but I can separate that from judging the aesthetics of a vehicle. The CT looks okayish from the front, but from the back it's an ugly bloated mess. Also it's just way too big of a vehicle for my taste. Like Hummers, I just have no desire to drive a vehicle that large.
It's smaller than an F150 Lightning. Sure, it's not for everyone, but if you want a truck that can haul large items or plywood sheets, it's reasonable.
politics aside, Cybertuck is/was an engineering breakthrough.
48 volts, steering wheel, no paint ( better durability), trunk, wipers etc. the car pushed the boundaries. If you compare level of creative thinking of cybertruck vs lets say electric ford, it's not even comparable. I respect that despite one person behind it. I don't care how it looks. It's polarizing. oh well.
My 11 y.o. relative from abroad asked me to take rl pictures of the truck, after he heard my neighbor bought it.
I think Tesla did some cool things with it, but I think it's a little too early to label it as an engineering breakthrough. I'm not convinced some of the things they did and decisions they made (one large wiper, the stainless steel is susceptible to surface corrosion, various pinch points, weak control arms) will hold up over time
It's not very durable though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_EJ3DyiiA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn4XzbMf9nY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey0ZAaF2L4E
It's a hulking pile of shit built to be hostile to the people and things it shares an environment with. The middle fingers and thumbs downs people aim at them are fully deserved by the buyer and driver. They don't fit in parking spaces and are driven by people who think they're the main character of earth. I look forward to the day when the last one melts from a faulty battery fire.
That's an interesting take on other people's property.
You want people who spent monies on an item they like, to suffer, and incur loss.
That is not very humane of you. No kindness there.
They show as much kindness to the cybertruck owners as the cybertruck shows to pedestrians. That car is built to hurt people around it, even if is by accident
The lack of paint is the only cool part
And Delorean did that 40 years earlier.
Stainless steel without paint, yeah. It's cool that the Cybertruck is a thicker and more rigid kind of steel, so it's not just lack of paint.
> no paint ( better durability)
And yet there were still durability issues with the truck? My understanding is that there were many manufacturing issues, and it also experienced several recalls.
The etherloop between zone controllers and the resulting reduction in wiring is pretty cool.
Maybe through a very specific engineering perspective it was interesting. From a broader engineering perspective it was embarrassing. It is called a truck, very much not a truck. Nearly no actual utility. No hauling capability. No durability. Falls apart because it is glued together. Shows every place where someone brushed up against it. Poor fit to the operating environment.
I'll give you that it was a unique design. But if we're talking about engineering... it could not have promised more or delivered less.
>48 volts
Questionable choice, 12v works just fine OEMS just need to stop putting it in stupid locations.
>Steering wheel
??? the weird actual steering wheel or the terrible steer by wire?
>No paint
It's ok the panels just fall off their weak plastic attachment points instead
>Trunk
The one that would crush your fingers?
>Wipers
The singular poorly thought out wiper?
The only boundary the cybertruck pushed was NHTSA safety regulations and recalls
> no paint ( better durability)
instead of paint/clearcoat getting scratched you can pit / etch / scar the raw metal!
Its made from hard steel, which is much harder to scratch and damage than ordinary car paint (or indeed ordinary car bodies, which are made of softer steel).
The paint is sacrificial and add essential barrier between the environment and the panel material. The panels are not sacrificial.
Thinking that paint is for... looking cool? People here need to try to get a grip on reality.
And you can do that without even being near the vehicle, because the panels fall off.
It was an engineering break something, for sure.
Is that a joke?
How are any of those things engineering breakthroughs??? What?!
They demonstrate what's possible when we throw all engineering principles out the window and let a child's sketch turn into a product. Truly revolutionary.
I think the main breakthrough was cost-engineering: glued on panels, cast-aluminum frame, "metal" accelerator pedal glued onto a plastic component. Which is ironic considering how expensive the thing was.
I blame Tesla and their "giant iPad" interiors for many of the cost-cutting trends we see in cars today.
I’ve been seeing complaints on the internet about how all cars look the same nowadays. I think the cybertruck proves why. A lot of design has coalesced around the same thing, not just for cars but for websites and apps, logos, furniture, etc. because people like that stuff.
Something new and fresh can be accepted and loved, but it still needs to be familiar and somewhat iterative. A radical change like the cybertruck is hated for that reason. (People also hate it because of Elon, but they don’t hate the other Teslas nearly as much as they hate the cybertruck)
When the Cybertruck was first announced, Musk was still the darling of the left and progressive wealthy. It was daring and different and cool, and it was explicitly meant to be an experiment in making cars differently.
By the time of its delayed release, Musk had become deeply unpopular with many of that original coalition of fans and buyers, the truck was more expensive than originally promised, his new ‘base’ probably couldn’t afford to buy many of them, and it was structurally a fairly normal car underneath the steel panels. It also suffered plenty of embarrassing issues, which people were of course gleeful to publicise.
It could have been a cool funky status symbol, but Musk screwed it all up.
> When the Cybertruck was first announced, Musk was still the darling of the left and progressive wealthy. It was daring and different and cool, and it was explicitly meant to be an experiment in making cars differently.
People still hated it when it was announced, the online discourse was largely negative surrounding it. I remember being in my tech office at the time and we were all talking about how bad it looked.
Not universally. Your tech office and online spaces may have disliked it, but I also saw a lot of excitement and positivity about it, both online and IRL.
From my memory, a lot of the excitement was directed at what the design was trying to achieve: a structural body made from easy to make pressed steel panels. This was meant to enable a much cheaper car while also removing the bottlenecks plagueing Tesla's production lines at the time
None of this materialized. The truck that ended up in production was a traditional body construction, but with unpainted steel panels so it looks like the truck Musk presented. It ended up with all the drawbacks of a steel body, while still being expensive and hard to manufacture
I agree that this was part of it - I referred to this twice in my original post.
Once the structural body concept failed (has it ever been adequately explained why they failed?) it would have made sense to either drop the Cybertruck altogether, or pivot to a more traditional design. But ego prevailed, sadly.
IMO the big missed opportunity was to follow the model 3 with a 'model 2' - a smaller, cheaper car - probably in the VW Golf / BMW 1-series class.
The Cybertruck announcement was a couple years after the Thai Rescue Divers "pedo" incident, which was the tipping point for many people (including on the left) to realize he wasn't actually the Tony Stark character he pretended to be and actually a pretty shitty person.
This was well into the Tesla flamethrower/short shorts/funding secured/etc period of $TSLA meme stockification. Also pushing Dogecoin/crypto.
He certainly wasn't the "darling of the left" by then. But you are correct that his image was significantly less tarnished by political meddling and later obsession with woke/trans/culture war of the day stuff.
He was the darling of the emerging meme stock day trader/gambler/WSB crowd which in broad strokes tends to anti-correlate with the "left".
Yes - fair point. His image was on the move, but not full MAGA crazy. Maybe ketamine was in his orbit already.
Agreed. When it was first announced, I was kind of interested. I laughed at imagining it as a screenshot from an N64 game.
But it didn't live up to the selling points, it is very expensive, has design issues that weren't necessary for the aesthetic, and the company's owner turned out to be a really horrible person contributing meaningfully to changes in my country that are dangerous.
> Musk was still the darling of the left
I can assure you he was not.
I know this isn't Reddit, but I'm chuckling at your username :)
This is rewriting of history. It was ridiculed even by the reddit shitlibs that hung on to Papa Elon's every word. Breaking the glass twice was a meme.
No he was not. Progressive left noticed who he is first, long before that point.
And positive first reactions to that car came only from Musk fans bubble. I was seeing people calling it ugly from basically a day 1.
One thing I think gets overlooked in cybertruck discourse that I didn’t appreciate until I saw one in person is that it’s really big. It FEELS really big. With all those hard edges, it also seems more imposing and aggressive.
It doesn’t give me the impression of “radical change.” It felt familiar and iterative of the modern, oversized F250-style pickup truck in all of the worst ways.
The design isn't what led to its demise, the $80K-100K sticker price did.
Cars look the same because they're trying to his specific mileage and safety standards. There are a few common shapes that can do that, and every angle you flatten into a curve gets you a couple more MPG.
Trucks don't look quite the same because they have different standards to adhere to.
Or maybe "I am not like other girls" is not a good personality to hang on. An exceptional athlete stands out. But so does the village drunk. Just being different is not enough.
The product failed because it was a shit product. In the grand scheme of unreliable American built cars, it was just another one. It was certainly not as bad as a Jeep. But it was ugly, and did not do what it was supposed to do; be a truck.
This is every top comment ITT, and I am checking user's post histories to confirm they are real. I understand I might be in the minority, but this belief that just being different is a merit unto itself is ridiculous.
There’s a school of thought that anything is better than blandly conformative design. In that school, the Cybertruck counts as progress.
To me, it’s more like answering a complaint about the blandness of pop music with electric bagpipes and nails on chalkboard: if you can’t be different and good, maybe don’t try so hard to be different.
I think a lot of the reason most cars look the same is they all have to pass similar pedestrian crash standards. Once you account for all of that, the basic shape of the vehicle is set and there is only so much unique styling you can attach.
Have you seen any of the videos where they push fake kids in front of Teslas versus other cars?
I don't think the safety argument holds up here when you're comparing Teslas with standard automobiles.
Agreed. That's why its a pickup truck, which I believe is exempted from a lot of those pedestrian protection standards in the US
People don't just hate it because it looks different. They hate it because it's ugly, unreliable, and a symbol of the modern idolatry of the billionaire class.
Exactly so.
It's a massive, gaudy symbol of unfathomable decadence, and every purchase was made to visibly support the passion project of the world's most influential white supremacist.
It's one thing for a vehicle to be "ugly," but this one stands for so much more.
I really thought it would have had a lot of potential for cheaper manufacturing. No paint process is huge. And originally they were talking about basically building it like origami from a sheet of steel.
The steel exoskeleton idea didn't survive to production. The production truck has a mix of aluminum castings and welded steel unibody, with the stainless panels just acting as the skin. Maybe they bring some structural rigidity, but not like the origami plan that was originally discussed.
The end result is a vehicle with all of the costs of a normal unibody design plus the costs of dealing with cutting, folding, and attaching thick sheets of stainless steel.
It never delivered the promised $40k starting price or the promised 500 mile top spec range either.
It’s staggering how much money they wasted because Musk didn’t want to listen to real experts. It was years late because stainless steel is so much harder to work with, especially when it has so many complicated geometries, and every one of those delays was a chance for him to say “maybe the people I hired for their expertise know something I don’t” rather than “I’m the boss, make it work”.
They could’ve done something like the Slate truck a decade earlier.
Part of the delay was also the 48V architecture. So in addition to the obvious new things like stainless steel panels they also had to redesign mundane parts like window motors and interior lighting. The Cybercab is also using a 48V architecture so even though they've never talked about it being an R&D platform maybe they'll retcon it that way.
That forces a redesign of all the car electronics. While it might well be a good idea anyway from an R&D point of view it's undeniably expensive.
(I have a very slight visibility on 48V car audio R&D, for example. Most digital electronics could be adapted with a different DC-DC converter but the audio power amp stage takes direct supply voltage)
Real experts said reusable rockets were impossible ...
Did they?
A real expert told Elon that self landing rockets were possible over chutes. The retconning to build the myth of Elon is ridiculous.
Lars Blackmore was doing self-landing rocket research before he went to spacex. Musk's reusable rockets (who doesn't want that, this is why the shuttle exists) wanted to use parachutes.
Yes. Is my comment ambiguous or something?
Seems to me like a sentence that's quite easy to understand.
I understood what you wrote, my question was whether it is true.
Lots of false sentences are easy to understand.
No, no rocketry expert ever said that reusable rockets were impossible. They would have told you that the cost to develop them would not recoup itself based on the then-existing demand for orbital payloads, and that banking on such demand materializing would be a massive gamble (which is why Starlink exists).
"What I’m discovering in the market is that SpaceX primarily seems to be selling a dream, which is good. We should all dream. I think a $5 million launch or a $15 million launch is a bit of a dream. I think reusability is a dream. How am I going to respond to a dream? First of all, you don't wake people up. They have to wake up on their own."
https://www.facebook.com/61572338938589/videos/in-june-2013-...
Pathetic argumentation in this thread, to be real.
Falcon 9 is partial reusable, took a lot of money to do so and yeah its a good product. Not sure how expensive it was for US americans to gift it to Spacex but sure.
The highest number though is like 30 uses and Starship still hasn't profen itself.
Also the boring company, Doge, Solar City, the cybertruck etc.
So what do we get out of this? Musk is for sure not just an idiot, he for sure sees sometimes good opportunities, but also he had the money to invest in these and he got lucky a few times too.
Btw. the cybertruck he announced, never came.
> Falcon 9 is partial reusable, took a lot of money to do so and yeah its a good product. Not sure how expensive it was for US americans to gift it to Spacex but sure.
How much money have Americans gifted NASA to pay Russia for launching payloads ton Soyuz rockets?
Do you frame all government funding as "gifting"?
And you could just as easily frame it as Musk "gifting" something to the US government by offering cheaper launches than Roscosmos and Boeing/ULA, and developing new capabilities cheaper than Boeing
Are you trying to argue against me? Because you are doing a strawman.
Let me criticsize NASA for paying / gifting Russia for launching payloads.
So we are now back to square one.
Pls continue
> They could’ve done something like the Slate truck a decade earlier.
They could have Roadstered it.
Buy Ford Transit 350 "gliders", work out how to make them FWD, RWD, or AWD using your own transaxles and batteries. Pickup, van, or just a bare chassis-cab to go to a coachbuilder, it doesn't matter.
The Transit has been around for 61 years. Sticking electric motors in it that you already have is a no-brainer.
Arguably the longest lived successful British vehicle, the Transit. https://www.fromtheroad.ford.com/eur/en/articles/2025/transi...
> Musk didn’t want to listen to real experts
"real experts" are not always correct. A bet a lot of people told him that the original Teslas were a bad idea or SpaceX would never...wait for it...take off.
But sometimes people win when they push the boundary of what might work, push the problems to the surface and then solve them.
I don't like the guy but you can't really deny his ethusiasm and single-mindedness.
An engineers isn’t going to say “EVs will never work” or “reusable rockets are impossible”. They’d say things like “we’re really going to need to minimize weight and try to build better batteries to hit that range goal” or “it’s going to require a lot of money to do the R&D for reusable boosters, you need to land a NASA contract so we can afford dozens of tests”. Engineers express tradeoffs far more than absolutes.
Musk has enthusiasm, yes, but he’s let his luck at PayPal and successfully buying Tesla from the original founders go to his head. Nobody is right all of the time, and no serious project goes perfectly according to the original vision without adjustments. There’s nothing wrong with the idea of an electric truck — companies with better engineering culture are making great ones — but the Cybertruck failed exactly the way everyone who isn’t a superfan expected: it’s designed in a way which guarantees high costs and it just doesn’t deliver corresponding benefits for most people. Diving into the culture wars against a large chunk of potential Tesla buyers was a bad idea but even if he hadn’t, there just aren’t that many people who have that kind of money to spend and the ones who do usually won’t accept so many limitations and flaws.
That’s a little bit revisionist. I don’t like Musk much either but to be fair:
- no one in the established “expert” car companies thought that mainstream EVs were feasible. Sure, there may have been individuals, but it didn’t make it into corporate strategy or product delivery. The Model S plus the Supercharger network changed the face of the car industry.
- none of the clever brains spending billions in NASA, ULA, ArianeSpace, et al made a reusable commercial rocket a reality. They had an infinite head start vs. SpaceX and failed to innovate. Even now, having their lunch money regularly stolen by SpaceX, where is the reusable competition?
> no one in the established “expert” car companies thought that mainstream EVs were feasible
No executive in the established "expert" car companies had any reason to rock the boat. Establishing EVs as a credible alternative to ICEs required a build-out of charging infrastructure that none of them were willing to commit to. But non-established companies had no such risk, and the emerging companies in China would have developed no less quickly even if Tesla never existed.
> none of the clever brains spending billions in NASA, ULA, ArianeSpace, et al made a reusable commercial rocket a reality
All of them would have told you that there's nothing impossible about a reusable rocket, only that their customers were happily served by their current offerings. Without Starlink, there would be no commercial demand that would make up for the cost of R&D.
> But non-established companies had no such risk, and the emerging companies in China would have developed no less quickly even if Tesla never existe
Yes. And in fact, Tesla existed before Musk, who merely invested in the company and then rewrote the history to make him a “founder”.
Fast forward 20 years, and now we have musk shills calling people “revisionists” when they just state facts.
> Tesla existed before Musk, who merely invested in the company and then rewrote the history to make him a “founder”.
The world is scattered with the skeletons of failed car startups. Outside of China, there hadn’t been one to succeed at a meaningful level for a long time, and no one gave any new entrant much hope of survival, much less one that was also trying to create a whole new sector and the infrastructure to support it.
Like it or not, Tesla’s survival let alone its level of success has been extraordinary.
It’s impossible to know whether it would have succeeded without Musk’s involvement; but… the probabilities suggest perhaps not.
> Fast forward 20 years, and now we have musk shills calling people “revisionists” when they just state facts.
I assume this barb is aimed at me.
I’m far from a Musk “shill”. I strongly dislike the person he’s become, the way he behaves, and the huge opportunities he’s squandered as a result and along the way. I refuse to buy his products.
However, I’m just not emotionally involved in either direction and try to be factual and neutral. He’s a horrible person who has led companies that have achieved extraordinary things.
Ironically, people who can’t see past their emotions and spend time on the internet throwing insults around in discussions exist on both sides, whether they’re a “shill” or an anti-shill, or hater, or whatever terms fits (you) best.
Yes. Musk and his colleagues revolutionised two technical and entrenched industries. You make it sound like this wasn't a difficult proposition.
> Without Starlink, there would be no commercial demand that would make up for the cost of R&D.
Not sure about this analysis.
a) SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 relatively cheaply - ~$300m to it simply being a viable launch platform (i.e. without reuse, Dragon, etc.)
b) NASA contributed to some of the costs.
c) SpaceX was already offering launch services cheaper than their competition before perfecting reuse or conceiving of Starlink.
Therefore it's likely that they'd have had a positive (albeit lower) business case and made back R%D costs over time, simply by offering launch services and capturing a majority of the market thanks to their lower prices. Reusability lowered their launch costs, when it came. Starlink was an answer to the question of how to capitalise on all of the cheap surplus launch capacity they'd made available.
The clever brains at JPL worked on self landing rockets before they went to spacex. Your tax dollars at work.
https://www.alphaxiv.org/@lars-blackmore
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Blackmore
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xZvK9z0AAAAJ&hl=en
Indeed. That was why I deliberately wrote "made a reusable commercial rocket a reality".
It's not just high costs, its high costs that are only there to appease one man. The stainless steel sheets don't provide features that the average consumer even considers and has more than a few drawbacks
I can deny that his enthusiasm and single-mindedness are the reasons for his success.
His initial success, PayPal, was just a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Online payments are an obvious thing and a natural monopoly. He guessed right that PayPal would be the one that succeeded.
That gave him the opportunity to place more big bets that paid off. Neither electric cars nor reusable spacecraft were obvious wins the way online payments were, but it's also no sign of genius to have happened to place bets on companies that succeeded.
The evidence for that is that his luck ran out. He keeps backing audacious projects, and they keep failing. Anybody else would have been bankrupted a dozen times over. He keeps going because he got lucky the first time, with so much money that it's almost impossible for him to lose it all.
That is to say, I think it's more survivorship bias than the merits of his "enthusiasm and single-mindedness". A decade ago he had such a string of successes that I would consider the case that he was actually smarter than average, but he's had such a string of conspicuous and obvious catastrophes that the net result simply seems average at best.
I can deny it because he overpromises on everything just like Elizabeth Holmes. Only difference in space isn’t something new the us government did it in 1960’s and didn’t destroy nearly as many rockets. Elon isn’t smart enough to try an interfere with production rockets. His distance from decision making is what made it a success.
You invented a fictional group of people, got mad at them, then declared what you imagined they did was wrong.
I want you to know that.
Musk came into Tesla as funding. People were trying to make the cars.
With regards to SpaceX, he was looking for people to build rockets to go to Mars. But no one wanted to sell to him. So he hired rocket scientists to build the rockets.
And yes, while there will always be some asshole who says "That won't work", there were plenty of ""real experts"" who were working at those companies.
And the "real experts" left us dependent on Russia for launching a couple capsules a year to the space station.
They could have done what Musk did with Falcon 9 in the 90's. Instead they chose to mess around more with solid fueled heavy lift vehicles, all the while proclaiming that they were the experts/science.
The fallacy you are committing here is making all the non-spacex experts a homogeneous straw people.
Found Elizabeth Holmes's alt.
(I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there's a difference between thinking outside the box and trying new ideas, and literally ignoring factual reality and repeated clear feedback from people who actually know what they're talking about.)
> "real experts" are not always correct
That's why you should always hire someone unqualified.
not always, but usually!
I mean once you buy the tooling, it’s still probably cheaper to produce stainless steel trucks than paint normal steel. I agree on everything else though
If that’s true it would only be the case if you could amortize that tooling across enough vehicles. Selling 10k-20k per year from a production line planned with a capacity of 125k per year won’t get you there.
Why?
Steel is heavy, you have to paint the frame anyway, people like cars with colors, the steel has to be maintained too (scratches etc.).
Not really. Stainless is expensive and brittle. It's a lot more work to form complex panels out of stainless, and then they're essentially scrap if there's even a tiny amount of damage. A small dent will start a crack.
At least it delivered on being bulletproof unless you shoot it.
It's 100% bulletproof except for the parts it's made out of.
Would be interesting to know how much the useless steel body detracts from the range compared to a lighter material.
Even more interesting would be how much the steel hurts the tons-to-orbit in the Starship.
Painted piece of plastic gonna be cheaper than sheet of stainless steel. Stainless is significantly more expensive than typical materials used on car, which would be normal steel or plastic depending on panel.
Also painting IN THE FACTORY isn't expensive. Re-painting the part on repair is because of all of the prep work required (take apart, clean, color match etc).
Might be break-even, but I doubt it would be cheaper
"It will be cheaper" is a perspective of ignorant "smart guy" that thinks because he got successful in one thing that they can weight in on industry processes they have no idea about
They developed, at great cost, the process used for the cars with the giga press and the plastic. It would've been a fine process for an inexpensive truck.
Speaking out of my ass here, but I would not be surprised if it's much cheaper to paint cheap stamped steel, compared to using more expensive stainless steel that's treated to remove all surface marring/scarring from the stamping process. Those panels don't come out all brushed from the metal presses...
Stainless steel is far harder to work than regular steel. There is no way that process was cheaper.
What happens if you scrape your fridge getting it into the kitchen?
You go to the DIY shop and buy a tin of white spray paint.
What happens if you scrape your brushed stainless fridge getting it into the kitchen?
Well, now you get to either live with it, or come up with some really clever ideas on polishing out the scratch and then sanding it back to disguise it with the rest of the surface which will never really look right.
Stainless would be standard on economy cars, and the Cybertruck would be painted so as not to look like a Ford Pinto.
Wait, not sure I understand you. Where are stainless panels used on economy cars?
Not sure I follow your ford pinto comment either.
If unpainted stainless were actually cheaper then it would be the standard on cheap cars.
Ah yes, very true observation. Thanks for clarifying.
I don't think the poor sales is primarily due to the cost - it's just a design with limited appeal.
The original design is what gave them millions of pre-orders, it was the reduction in range and increase in cost that made most people cancel those pre-orders.
A $100 fully refundable deposit is not a very high bar of commitment. I suspect many of those reservations were non-serious.
$100 is a fair chunk of money for the average person. I agree some preorders were probably half hearted, but the $100 commitment definitely weeded out some the jokers for sure.
$100 is a fair chunk of money for anyone who would have never been a buyer anyway.
$100 is also a trivial amount of money for a larper with half the budget required to complete the purchase. Or someone with plenty of money who just put in a reservation "just in case" they wanted one.
Thats not really fair, the $40k promised price is not that much higher than your average middle class car purchase. I think anyone willing to go to the site, sign up, and hand over $100 would be willing to to take on a payment plan for a $40k car.
The average buyer in the US can't afford a new car of any kind. The average car sale is a used car. Used cars outsell new cars 3 to 1. And the average used car sells for $27k.
Entertaining the idea of a new car purchase is an upper-middle class thing, and a fully-refundable $100 is impulse buy territory for most of them. Yes, many of them would have been capable of taking on a $40K purchase, but $100 is not a serious indicator that they were serious about doing it. People who have this money are doing relatively well and blow $100 on much more inane things that aren't refundable.
A traditional dealer would ask someone with much less money looking at a used Nissan Sentra to put down $500 to hold a car.
> $100 is not a serious indicator that they were serious about doing it
OK, but I think it is. So can we agree to disagree, is that ok with you that I have a differing opinion?
You are fully entitled to your opinion but the data shows very little overlap between the groups of people who buy new cars and the groups of people for which $100 is a significant amount of money.
If you want to hold reserve a damn Toyota the dealer is going to ask you to show up in person, put down $500-1000 and fill out a credit app.
Tesla knew the $100 reservation was too low to show serious commitment, and this was intentional for two reasons:
1. to float an interest free loan
2. to manipulate investors
> You are fully entitled to your opinion
Thanks very much, have a great day! (Didnt read anymore of the post as it was unnecessary)
I wonder how many people liked the design vs tolerated it? If Ford offered a cybertruck trim on the F-150 without changing the price would people buy it?
No doubt there is some demand for an "out there" design, but I'd have to guess that the projected $40K price was itself a large part of the attraction.
Possibly, but as it cost $100 to put down a deposit I would be surprised if that many people were willing to actually pay for something they only tolerated.
It was a refundable deposit (and small), so I wonder how many people were even that serious - no real commitment.
2019 USA annual car/pickup sales were ~17M. I find it very hard to believe that 10% (2M cybertruck pre-orders) of those purchasers were seriously interested in a cybertruck - it really is not a design made for mainstream tastes.
If you owned a company and announced a product that 2 million people went and paid you $100 each for to preorder it, Im pretty sure you would think differently.
Not sure what you mean by that - I'm sure Tesla was happy to have the reservations (great publicity - maybe that was the point), but there is no indication they took the numbers seriously.
The design looks much better rendered on screen than in real life.
I thought the early images looked amazing but I see them all the time in real life (a few people in my neighborhood own them) and they just look so stupid on the road.
Agreed, but this thread is duscussing the original popularity and whether Elon was wrong to believe it or not.
With false but great looking renders and false but great sounding promises, the hype and interest was real. It was only when the real product became apparent that it became a joke and interest was lost.
You would think maybe Musk would learn something about overpromising from this fiasco, but judging by things like DOGE I guess not!
>You would think maybe Musk would learn something about overpromising from this fiasco, but judging by things like DOGE I guess not!
You're talking about the guy who has a fake twitter account tweet at him things like "you're such a good father, Elon, your kids are lucky to have you".
He's absolutely desperate for attention and approval, because not being perceived as cool is crippling to his sense of self-worth.
Of course he won't learn from overpromising! He inhabits a different reality, surrounded by sycophants and yes-men.
A folded stainless exoskeleton without paint has the potential to make low volume car manufacturing much cheaper.
A press brake is generic and cheap. Molds for presses are cheap if the cost can be spread over many vehicles, but are expensive for low volume manufacturing.
Paint shops are similar. They're not expensive if you're running a lot of cars in the same color through it, but at low volumes with custom colors they are fabulously expensive.
Of course the final production Cybertruck didn't use the exoskeleton design so it was the worst of both worlds, but it does feel like the original design wasn't expected to sell well and was designed for low volume manufacturing.
Bending stainless steel requires special tooling and strategies to overcome its tendency to work harden and high springback.
The folded steel exoskeleton has no potential, it was a bad idea that was abandoned. It was always going to crack at the folds.
This idea was never going to work out. In my opinion Slate have got a far more sensible approach with their replaceable body panels.
I live in the UK so I'll likely never be able to get one, but I'd love a car I can just buy new panels for and wrap them with minimal tools.
> No paint process is huge
Replacing a well-known manufacturing stage with a completely unproven one for no good reason is rarely a good idea.
Same. Initially I was optimistic about the Cybertruck because I though “flat metal panels and no paint is going to make both manufacturing and repairs so much easier and cheaper”.
Paint has been well studied. We know how to do it really cheap and automated these days. Cheap is relative. I'm sure that we're talking tens of millions of dollars to get all the equipment needed. But on a scale of factory and for how long it will last, that's cheap.
Flat metal is more expensive than curved metal. Curved metal, you design the curves to help support the stress points: you can get by with thinner sheets. Flat metal requires thicker heavier more expensive sheets of sheet metal in order to be strong enough.
Curved metal also lets you design the whole thing to be more aerodynamic. which is an important consideration even with something as un-aerodynamic as a truck.
> I'm sure that we're talking tens of millions of dollars to get all the equipment needed.
Painting cars really is a hugely optimised process that materially affects performance characteristics such as weight.
Its very difficult to appreciate just how many cars are made worldwide wide, but just think if a completely optimised fully robot optimised line cost a billion dollars, in only needs to process a few million cars to fully pay itself off. Just look at how much a “paint option” costs. Enough people paying for a premium colour would completely pay for the entire production painting line.
Painting cars is also a process that scales. If you want to do a great job on one car everything you need can be had for less than $3000 (inflatable spray booth, large air compressor, a paint gun, and lots of sand paper). A good job can be done for less (a cheap air compressor and paint outside can still get good results), and most people who want to paint a car already have most of the tools so the cost goes down. The above setup will also handle a small auto body shop that is painting a couple cars per month, and you can upgrade equipment as needed (I'd start with a spray building instead of an inflatable booth).
At the scale of Tesla the millions of dollars on a fully automated setup is cheap because amortize the cost of so many cars
Painting actually introduces some scaling issues in manufacturing. Any painting step prevents you from haphazardly mixing all the parts produced on a line. Most vehicles will have multiple lines that eventually converge across multiple suppliers. Painting forces you to either coordinate the production of each individual component so that they're all painted the correct color during final assembly (which becomes difficult if any parts fail QA), or buffer painted parts in a giant warehouse. There's other advantages to the warehouse, but I wouldn't call it cheap.
Very common to use a mix of both strategies in practice.
They built that truck backwards and upside down. The single-piece forged aluminum frame was basically impossible to repair and brittle. Typical truck frames flex, they're part of the suspension. For small accidents, the frame can be bent back. The CT would just crack, requiring extensive aluminum welding to fix which is waay harder than welding a steel frame.
I thought this is not relevant tbh.
Either you have a modern expensive car and insurance which knows how to handle it properly, or it doesn't matter anymore and you got to a cheap car doctor.
There were no flat panels. That was a sales pitch. In reality, a slight curve to a panel adds so much strength that it can be made considerably lighter/cheaper than a flat panel of sufficient strength. Flat panels also tend to dent inwards very easily, which is not a good look for a car. Then there is the issue of thermal expansion. A pre-bent bit of metal will expand in a predictable way. A dead-flat panel could buckle in multiple unexpected ways.
I had a jeep wrangler once. The window was "flat" but not if you looked at its reflection. There was an almost imperceptible but complex curve, no doubt for strength.
Repair will be easier and cheaper? :D
As the DeLorean community will tell you, repairing unfinished stainless steel to aesthetically pleasing levels is almost impossible.
Take a piece of tinfoil, crumple it, then try to uncrumple it to its factory finish.
Repairing painted bodywork is easy and cheap: hammer it to get a rough shape, apply fillers, then paint & polish to factory finish. Simple as.
how you repair steel panel and also make it look nice ?
...you don't. You replace it in whole. You can't use filler to mask small dents and paint over it, if you want it to look as before, you have to pretty much replace it.
A steel panel would we repairable with the same tools a curved panel is. You can pull out dents without filler - filler is for fiberglass.
I think they are mostly not doing paint going forward. CyberCab also doesn't use paint, but uses cheaper materials than stainless steel.
That original process was what should have led to lower prices. Instead, they couldn't do it and had to resort to gluing steel panels onto a body-on-frame design which is much more expensive. They still managed to keep it just as hideous, so kudos there I guess.
I doubt that replacing painted regular steel with fancy stainless steel is going to be cheap. Paint is expensive, but so is stainless steel. I also can't imagine the "origami" technique to be cheaper than stamping, the reason they suggested that is because their fancy stainless steel can't be stamped. And in the end, Tesla couldn't even do it, so they glued the parts on...
I don't know any item where the unpainted stainless steel version is cheaper than the painted steel version, thinking about kitchen appliances for instance. For cars, the most famous car with a stainless steel body is the DeLorean DMC-12, which was notoriously expensive, even without the time circuits.
In that way the Slate pickup seems to be the truck Cybertruck promised to be
Slate hasn’t made a single delivery yet, so in that sense it’s definitely the truck Cybertruck promised to be.
> originally they were talking about
Elon talks about a lot of things. Consider if you might be part of the media ecosystem that enables that strategy.
They were also talking about how it could become a boat. All the hype in the world eventually has to meet reality.
Elon promised a lot but delivered almost nothing when it comes to the Cybertruck.
A “truck” that’s can’t haul, tow, or offroad is a very interesting product decision. Right up there with a two-person taxi.
It’s like they completely forgot the “what do people need” phase of product management.
Two-person taxi is actually reasonable for the modal journey, but absolutely doesn't cover all use cases or accessibility.
The cybertruck was an early example of what someone on bsky called the "everyone is twelve now" theory: it looks like it was drawn by a small boy's idea of "cool", with zero further thought.
There's a comparison that's been making the rounds on social media for a while.
In once panel, there's the Cybertruck whose owner bragged about it carrying a large round hay bale (weighs around 1,500lbs) with the suspension looking like it was about to die. Next to it is a shot of a circa-1980 Ford F250 carrying three of the same bales and sitting perfectly level. TBF, the F250 probably had air bags in the rear suspension, but still...
That thing is only a "truck" because they decided to call it that.
Even modern trucks have turned into giant "luxury" vehicles that can't haul much more than the smaller trucks of 30 years ago. For most trucks bought by families, the heaviest thing they lug around is cat litter.
Most people should just buy a sedan. :-/
Somehow everything turns into a misdirection with Elon, where failing to innovate yields ridiculous distractions. When the Cyberjunk was clearly a poor product, they pivoting to "doubling as a boat" and being bullet "proof". And also you can play shitty ports of video games, awkwardly, on your in-car screen.
At some point this gimmick misdirection nonsense has to stop working.
Oh look, if you have a transport-truck sized massive compressor in your garage and use 100kWh to spend a day filling a tank, your ComingSoonNow(TM wink) Roadster can do some silly stuff if you dedicate much of the interior to a giant explosion hazard.
I think they wanted to make SpaceX and Tesla somehow look "related".
Another prediction from the Simpsons comes true. The 1991 episode "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" where Homer designs a car with zero input from anybody besides himself. The result is an overpriced behemoth with random features nobody needs and nothing customers want (fuel efficiency, affordablility).
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gRBDLE06qNY
Today, we'd called "founder mode".
There's a pattern here: when an Elon Project is successful, he jumps in with Elon innovations, like cyber truck. The next example that will follow this pattern is building a rocket that's too big for orbital payloads, but takes 22 refueling flights to get beyond orbit.
What do you mean too big for orbital payloads? Mass to low earth orbit is what matters, which starship is well optimized for. You could always put a tiny third stage on there to go places, but that is back to the apollo style yeeting a tiny amount of mass somewhere else and would not help with getting serious tonnage to the moon and mars
> Mass to low earth orbit is what matters
For a company, matching products and services to demand is what matters. Being able to get more mass into orbit only matters if enough people are willing to pay to get stuff there. The analogy is that jumbo jets exist, but almost no passenger flights bother with jumbo jets because it's not economical. Unlike with civilian aviation we have yet to observe a natural experiment which would allow us to place an economically practical ceiling on rocket payload size, but it very much still remains plausible that something Falcon 9-sized is actually the sweet spot, especially given that Starlink is the only commercial offering that's pushing the existing Falcon 9 capacity. And yes, this completely ignores any mention of going to the moon or Mars, because although there may be incentives to do so (e.g. scientific incentives, political incentives, philosophical incentives), there is no economic incentive other than getting some government contracts which will be just as short-lived as Apollo was once the public loses interest.
Starlink is SpaceX's biggest revenue stream by far, and they are retiring Falcon 9 and quitting the contract / launch market, so they are matching very well with their own product, which is what they actually care about?
> And originally they were talking about basically building it like origami from a sheet of steel.
It turns out that sitting in your office wearing an adult nappy and snorting cat sedative until your bladder no longer functions might give you a lot of quite "creative" thinking, but it doesn't make you an engineer.
At some point Elon has to climb out of the K-hole and realise that these things are better left to proper engineers.
The original wasn't what shipped. From what I read the cheaper easier process wasn't, which isn't unusual.
It's also an ugly-ass car. If it had turned out to be super-reliable and cheap and "hackable" that would make up for it, even earn its strange look a cult following, but no it just ended up as an overpriced weird ugly-ass car.
Why would Tesla make "cheap" ? That's not their customer base.
Cheap hackable electric work truck (I imagine chassis with basic cabin that you can expand in various ways, like the EU van options have like half a dozen chassis) would be great but it's not something Tesla ever wants to make
>Why would Tesla make "cheap" ? That's not their customer base.
95% of their cars sold have been in the $30k to $60k range. They have long been the best bang for the buck electric car (in the US, since BYD isn’t allowed.
Isn't "hackable electric work truck" a bit of an oxymoron?
Just because the big batteries are so dangerous?
Who are their customer base? Musk seems to have decided to fire his actual customer base, but getting a new one more ideologically aligned with him hasn't quite worked out.
Based on my casual observation, middle school boys :)
https://www.xkcd.com/37/
I'm curious to see how the Slate trucks work out: https://www.slate.auto/en
I know its not fashionable to have such pesky concerns as priority in US, but pedestrian safety was simply non-present, hence it was banned all over Europe. Not missing it here, not missing that fugly ego whim of a sick man at all.
All other things aside, the worst part of the Cybertruck's design, to me, was its sloped truck bed walls (on the sides). Anyone who frequently uses their truck bed will know that getting access to stuff quickly and easily is key. And the Cybertruck's sloped walls go too high for anything in the very back of the bed to be reached. That just seems like such an unnecessary functional miss.
The good: someone trying a radically new design. Polarizing like the Fiat Multipla or Pontiac Aztek or even the first Chrysler minivan, but credit for trying.
The bad: didn't seem to be very good as a truck (eg build quality). That would not have been too bad, but it's dangerous when the design already alienates some buyers. Carmakers need time to get it right, and that needs sales.
The terrible: Elon torching his reputation in all sorts of ways and essentially insulting his past and future customer base. The politics, the bait and switch over features, etc etc. Eventually people tire of it.
It's tragic, because for better or worse Americans love their trucks, so the team that solves the electric transition is doing the world a huge favor.
While I will happily admit, the initial Multipla looks awful both inside and out to my sensibilities, I have to defend it vs the Cybertruck. Purely from the practicality standpoint, it was ingenious, having three seats front and back while being small, light and cheap solved a real need and I do still see quite a few, especially compared to other Fiats from that time, because of it. It also has what I feel is the most impactful facelift of any vehicle ever.
Had the Cybertruck brought forward the manufacturing innovations that were alleged to cause the weirdness in its design, I could draw the comparison with the Multipla, but as it stands, it has all the visual appeal of one, with none of the practical reasons for it. Having something ugly for good reasons, I can appreciate, function over form to the nth degree. Looking awful just for the sake of looking awful, not so much. Cybertruck is the car equivalent of intentionally bad Balenciaga releases (like the plastic bag), wherein even with taste being subjective and beauty in the eye of the beholder, there is a point where it just becomes as close to objectively ugly as is possible.
Can't comment on the Pontiac, have never seen one outside Breaking Bad.
The Fiat Multipla is one of the ugliest cars ever. But it was a very good compact.
The other two cars you mentioned look pretty run of mill.
The whole part about the "sharp edged design" is quite misleading.
Yes sharp edges are an issue as they can very much make the difference between people getting killed in a car accident and them surviving.
But this wasn't even the biggest problem for selling it to the EU.
E.g. cars sold in the EU there are a bunch of standards for safety of pedestrians for slower speed impacts. The Cyber Truck is kinda not passing any (most?) of the standards. This also isn't just the Cybertruck in general US style trucks are more deadly (for pedestrians; especially for children) and the Cybertruck is just the cherry on the top.
Lastly even if it could be sold in the EU it is questionable if it would be profitable, given some of the quality issues surfaced, the likely small production/sells quantity (trucks aren't exactly beloved in large parts of the EU, neither needed and as an actual truck it doesn't do the best job as others have pointed out).
Even if it were fully compliant with the standards, I don't see large trucks selling well outside the USA.
The day Chinese EVs are available in the US market we'll all have access to sub 15k cars perfect for commuting.
Make it a federal law that the cars wifi/SIM card phone home crap needs to be easily removable.
This protectionism around American cars is a hidden tax on everyone of us.
It's cheaper to let Tesla, Ford, etc all collapse and arrange direct social support for laid off workers.
I want a 15k byd. I don't need a 25k Slate.
Chinese vehicles are cheap because they're sold under cost. It can't continue to be that cheap and places with a car industry like Europe are crazy to allow them to be sold there.
Chinese vehicles are cheap because their manufacturing process is light years ahead.
I don't think you'll ever see that day considering the bipartisan hawkishness against China.
People forget that Biden put the 100% tariffs on Chinese cars, not Trump.
ok
And Trump didn't remove the tariffs, hence the "bipartisan" comment.
Laws and regulations around car dealerships are deeply ingrained into state and federal politics. I don't think we will see Chinese or Mexican EVs anytime.
It's a double whammy. We underfund public transportation so most people need a car.
We then add all types of strange protectionism around which cars can be sold.
No reason I shouldn't be able to order a new EV straight from Shenzhen.
Why do you spend time thinking about outcomes that will never, ever be realized? There is bipartisan support for anti-China protectionism. There is not bipartisan support for paranoid FOSS neckbeard concerns about radios that have been built into most cars since Onstar.
I remember 15 years ago when liberals were absolutely furious at companies relying on Chinese "slave labor" for making shoes cheap and cutting into US wages.
I myself have no strong opinion on the issue, and think protectionism can often be quite bad, but it's weird how things have flipped. Presumably because of reactions to one man's views.
Chinese EVs are not made with "slave labor"
I read stories about people burning to death inside Musk cars because he wanted to save a few cents on a door handle or something. I'm not interested in learning more because there are plenty of safer cars to choose from.
I have very little interest in electric vehicles, Tesla, Elon Musk, etc. But I still think the Cybertruck, at least the design, looks awesome. It looked like something you'd see in the "Another World" or "Out of this World" intro cinematic.
Agreed. I see it as the successor to the angular style of the Lamborghini Countach, which far more people are willing to admit looks cool.
Both look extremely cool to me but Elon's behaviour is the only reason I'll never buy a tesla. Even though the cybertruck looks awesome but it's impossible for me to be seen in this. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd used a cybertruck in a BTTF remake
The cultural element is the difference. It's a suburban vehicle who wants to pretend it's a truck, exactly like the pompous suburbanite assholes who want to pretend they are rugged alpha types just because they drive a truck they don't really need: both would fall apart in a minute when faced with real problems.
The Countach was just the usual Lamborghini luxury scam, and I say that as someone who grew up a few km from the factory. Nobody cared if it was kinda crap inside, because it existed just to look like a cool car. A truck is supposed to, y'know, be a truck.
Having seen both in person, a Countach actually looks cool. The Cybertruck looks like a shitty unused model from a PS1 game.
Just because something is "angular" doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to a Cybertruck.
You don't see how an angled polygonal shape sold in 1974 might be more loved than the same angled polygonal shape sold in 2020?
You realize style evolves right?
That style was futuristic in the 70s. It is not futuristic anymore. A lot has happened since the 70s to change what the future should look like.
Ironically, I am finding myself thinking that all the supposedly "bland" electric cars nowadays finally look like cars from the future, simply by being normal car looking, with very slight and subtle styling accents.
Because that's what a future car looks like: Roughly the same aerodynamic profile but with electric motors. That's literally what everyone wanted in the first place, as was Elon's thesis for Tesla as more than a niche car company.
The Cybertruck aesthetic is stupid because it is literally a middle finger to what people want, as Elon himself noted.
I don't get why people are so stuck on "But it looks different" as a good thing.
It's a car. Why are you so stuck on needing your car to stand out? Why is it a problem for you if cars look the same?
I also think the design is rad.
Doesn’t the new ~flying car have similar design vibes?
For an "unwanted" truck, I sure see a lot of them on the road.
Less than 50,000 of them ever built. And didn't SpaceX and the DoD (thanks, DOGE) buy about 2-3,000 of those between them? (I think SpaceX bought a thousand).
You might see "a lot of them" because they stand out and are "memorable".
To be fair, there are a lot of car companies that don't do big volumes. Lamborghini, for instance, takes about five years to sell that number across all models.
It looks like something that would be fun and cool to drive around in a video game. I would never get a Tesla for unrelated reasons, and would especially not get a Cybertrunk because it's not fit for purpose, but I thought the hate for the aesthetics was overblown.
But then I saw it in-person, and it looks indescribably weird and bad, akin to the uncanny valley. The problem is that it's a real vehicle and not in a video game.
As with most marketing gimmicks, they have little to no value outside of their insane marketing.
Used resale value is around $80,000.
I kept thinking the design was going to grow on me as I saw more of them on the road, but nope. I still think it looks unbelievably ugly. I do not think it looks like something that you'd see in Another World, it looks more like something I would have designed when I was fourteen playing with Lightwave.
Personally, I think it looks like a silver dumpster.
To those that downvoted, I’m sorry my opinion offended you.
A fugitive ice machine that escaped from Motel 6
There's someone near me who has one with a white wrap over it. I see it parked, and I thought:
"If Kenmore had the wherewithal to manufacture 4wd electric chest freezers...that's what they'd look like."
...but I'm not offended by it. I think that sort of whimsical craziness is all too often missing from modern durable goods, so I'm glad it got built.
I'm even happier that its existence upset mincing, peevish little eurotwee Conde-Nasty scribblequeefs like this Wired author. If it'd guarantee him leaping off of a tall pier, I'd pay MSRP for a Cybertruck.
I must say, America is very much isolated in the World of EVs. The Chinese have pretty much conquered the rest of the world.
Also, all the top level comments sound the same. Is there a reason?
I kinda like that it existed. It was ridiculous, like a production concept car. I just saw one the other day with a pink wrap.
I legitimately would have bought it if they made it look more like a regular pickup truck, and if Elon didn't go full crazy.
I did buy a Model-Y shortly before his Trump endorsement, and then sold it for technical reasons.
On a cold January morning, I was pulling up to a stop-sign, didn't have any autopilot turned on, and the car accelerated.
I think there is just too much software between gas pedal and the machinery of the car. They're honestly kind of dangerous vehicles. The average person can't handle the responsibility of a self-driving vehicle.
I told all of my friends and family that I would not recommend the vehicle yet to a non-technical person, even when I was myself driving it and loving it.
Setting your experience aside, my national transport agency in Denmark recently approved Tesla full self driving because the data confirmed that it’s safer than the average driver. I think it’s both true that these cars can fault, and that they’re safer on average than humans. To be clear, Denmark is not alone. Many European countries have approved it for the same reason, and many more are evaluating. Holland is the toughest to pass, and they passed.
Self-driving cars have fat-tailed risk.
Some outside factor might cause a signal failure, causing cascading destruction.
I assume you meant full self driving supervised, not actual full self driving.
No points for the nomenclature. Tesla calls it “Full Self Driving,” but it is supervised.
I wonder what they are going to call it if they ever develop the real thing.
“Full Self Driving for Realsies This Time.”
"Safer than the average driver" is great if all the below-average drivers start buying Teslas. But if you're converting drivers on the other end of the spectrum then the roads become less safe overall.
I wish someone who had access to the data would address this.
I do know that there is not much better than average driver! There is much worse than average: people who drive drunk, and a few other classes of people who shouldn't drive at all. However the vast majority are all about equal: in reasonable mental health and limited to the same eye and reaction times. A few people have and follow better training and so are slightly safer - but this is slight. Most people think they are better than average because they excuse their mistakes as a "one time mistake", while confusing "the other guy's" mistakes with the other guy must be a bad driver.
Denmark compared FSD data to national incident rates for regular passenger vehicles. So it’s a true average across all passenger vehicles.
Why would you assume that the group of people would be anything other than the average driver?
That's if you ignore the ability to look everywhere all at once which even the best human driver has trouble doing.
It will be interesting to see if the substantial safety margin decreases as more people buy in.
Yeah same. It was too strange looking for me and Elon’s turn to the far right kind of ruined Tesla for me. I ended up getting a F-150 lightning instead and it’s been a great experience. Unfortunately they stopped making those too.
> I think there is just too much software between gas pedal and the machinery of the car.
There's a shit ton of software between the gas pedal and the machinery of just about every car on the road today whether that be an ICE, hybrid, or EV. We're a long ways away from the go-go pedal directly pulling a cable opening the throttle plate.
Electric trucks in general seem terrible. You only see Rivians and Cybertrucks in urban settings, the electric F150 was discontinued. Anybody who knows how people that actually need trucks use trucks saw this coming, I never once saw a cybertruck used as a truck.
I always got the impression that the vast majority of the F150s are never used as trucks either. Americans just like really really big cars because fuel is cheap there and none of the cities are old enough that big cars are impractical.
Obviously it doesn't affect the electric vehicles but light trucks being excluded from CAFE def did a lot to acculturate americans to always buying a big car
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUV#1980s_to_1990s
This seems to have kicked off a bit of an arms race. Smaller cars are more dangerous to drive as other cars get bigger.
No, the F150 has great sales numbers but this is mostly due to commercial/work use. And commercial buyers need trucks that can tow, haul, be fitted with large toolboxes, booms/cranes, winches, plows, etc. The F150 electric solved none of those problems.
You're dismissing a cultural aspect of the popularity of trucks in america. There is way more trucks in Texas than say in Indiana, or Massachusetts on the road. Texas is one of the only states where people still drive hummers. They're not all doing off-roads
You need a 250 or 350 class truck for a lot of those uses - plows or heavy loads for example.
Well that's true. Loads of F150s in service as work trucks though. Potentially many could be EVs but the added cost and need for charging infrastructure for a fleet works against that.
The f150 did all of that. Range may have been an issue, though.
The chevy/gm ev trucks have bigger batteries.
Yeah my neighbor has a Sierra EV truck and he claims 500 miles range towing a camper, which I doubt but he loves it. He's all-in on EVs, has a another car as well and solar on his roof to help charge them.
Yeah 205 kWh is a huge battery (and charging at 350 kW is faster than anything else except a semi). But I doubt the 500 mi number too. Maybe he was going downhill.
Plenty of our cities predate cars. We were able to bulldoze walkable neighborhoods to build highways through them because of racism.
Big cars are certainly impractical in SF, but it's more due to parking than anything else :)
> Anybody who knows how people that actually need trucks use trucks saw this coming
I'm a current truck driver and very excited to swap out my ICE truck for a Slate next year. I need something that can haul my trash to the dump, grab a load of wood chips for the garden, and bring home the occasional sheet good from the home store.
I agree with your assessment as it applies to the Cybertruck or F150, but not the idea of an electric truck. Some people buy trucks because they need a light-duty hauling solution; unfortunately, the market seems to only want to sell luxury SUVs that happen to have truck beds.
cough small dump trailer (<3000 GVWR). Can be pulled by a light SUV. No shoveling those wood chips. Depending on where the trash is going, no having to lift that a second time either. I've carried 25 sheets of 3/4 ply in mine (and unloaded them by myself, as the tilting bed meant I could tilt up a bit and easily slide them off)
I have a hitch for my current truck and honestly a dump trailer wouldn't be a bad idea anyway for some use cases, but even if I had one I'd probably only use it when I had to. The convenience factor just being able to hop in and drive, or having the truck bed with you when you didn't plan on moving something just wins out.
I think the conveniences are still tradeoffs though. A separate vehicle is handy for being able to slowly collect things to get rid of in one later trip, or to store something you just got until you're ready to put it somewhere else (I've currently got what remains of a 1/2 yard of sand sitting in mine). And being able to just dump something and drive away is quite nice (especially when you've loaded it into the trailer using equipment to begin with).
On the other hand, I've never experienced being able to just haul something without a little planning first, so I don't miss it.
Trailers aren't a silver bullet. I own multiple trailers (one even has a crane on it) and will still use anything else given the chance because it's just such a hassle once the empty weight of your trailer gets above what's convenient to move around by hand (which it will if you want to beat what a half ton truck can do, not what's within the rating, but what it can do).
The thing about equipment is no matter what you've got, you're always going to want something bigger.
You just need to cover the bulk of uses, not every last thing you might need to do. I think the light SUV + utility trailer is a pretty good sweet spot, even better for many things than a pickup truck on its own. Like have fun lifting 20 sheets of plywood up onto a pickup truck and back down, assuming you've even got one with a long enough bed to support that whole pile.
And sure I'd imagine larger trailers get to be a hassle to move empty by hand, but isn't that what having more equipment is for? And isn't that well into the tier where you need a truck for a tow vehicle regardless?
Unless it's so small it roughly equals the utility capacity of a half ton truck a trailer is a big hassle. People choose to pay more for a truck because it "just works" with "no thinking" for a wide variety of stuff.
Man, you love needlessly combative framings. Being able to dump sure eliminates a different "big hassle". Personally I'd rather have to do some "thinking" than be manually lifting things unnecessarily (often twice). There are always tradeoffs, and I was merely mentioning a different option for people who are doing the occasional homeowner dump and mulch runs.
Not wrong. I combined my truck and SUV budget and bought a used X7 m50i and a small utility trailer. No joke it's the best pulling vehicle I have ever owned. Super heavy, super grippy, in trailer mode the torque comes on fast. It's brilliant. My old 03 Silverado sits even more now.
Most people driving trucks in the US don't use them as trucks, especially in cities. I think most people willing to take on a $1000/mo truck payment for their personal vehicle in the current economic climate are doing so for social reasons anyway. Whether the electric trucks on offer at the same price can compete on that front is a much more slippery question.
If we can get some affordable electric trucks in the US, it will be very interesting to see how the more rational segments of the market react once they are no longer priced out.
I've only ever heard positive things from every electric truck owner I know and this is coming from a market that's very truck-forward in terms of culture.
Unlike electric cars, the price for a used F-150 lightning is still a substantial fraction of new price. There is still substantial demand.
Work trucks are a very different market than for passenger vehicles. Their usage is a lot more consistent and known. This means that electric works very well for some work trucks and very poorly for others.
The other aspect of work trucks is that they're generally purchased by very conservative businesses who don't want to buy the bleeding edge, they want several years of reliability data before committing. The F-150 Lightning was cancelled just as that data was starting to come in.
Of course, most F-150's are sold as passenger vehicles rather than work trucks. Along with almost all Cybertrucks.
In my observations it appears there are 3 kinds of truck drivers.
1. People who need to haul stuff in the bed
2. People who need to tow stuff behind them
3. People who buy them for some form of self expression.
Electrics are probably fine for people in 1 & 3. But for 2 I have yet to find one that both tows and gets range.
I would suggest there are 4 kinds:
1. People who need them for work. 2. People who need to carry bulky loads 3. People who need to tow. 4. People who buy them for some form of self-expression.
The only real use case for electric trucks, imho, is construction site supervisors who do most around-town driving but may occasionally need to haul stuff. Their towing range is absolutely abysmal (F150 Lightning range dropped to about 90 miles when towing a moderate trailer!).
Not just construction site supervisors, but the actual workers also do around-town driving. Range is a nonissue for them. Driving from your home to the supply store to the customer site and back does not usually require 90 miles of driving.
Every contractor in my area has one and raves about it. Plumbers, electricians, framing guys, concrete guys.
They have a rack or canopy on the back, tow modestly and drive a few hundred km a day at most to and from the job site, the supply store, etc.
Every single one says they slashed their fuel bill by at least half, and they’re staggered how good they are.
I have seen rivians being used as trucks pretty often in small towns.
I see electric Silverados and Hummers (not a truck, but effectively the same vehicle as the electric Silverado) all the time, usually pulling landscaping utility trailers (flatbeds with huge commercial lawnmowers, etc.). I have no idea if this is economic or not (they definitely aren't cheap) but I've heard electric towing can't be beat for responsiveness, torque, etc.
It's pretty economical. Towing about halves your range. So you're still paying quite a low gallons/mile equivalent. However, that decreased range is a killer. So it makes sense why you'd see them doing lighter duty local work like landscaping.
An acquaintance saved thousands of dollars (over ten thousand, easily) by using his Cybertruck while building a cabin up in the mountains. All those trips to the hardware store and picking up random building materials add up very quickly when you are going up and down the mountain for materials and the big box hardware store is two hours away.
I definitely see them from time to time here in Austin loaded up with stuff being used as real work trucks. (But mostly not.)
Truck brained people are notoriously stubborn. If it isn’t like daddy’s old truck they simply can’t see past it
I live in the PNW and you see people not using their trucks as trucks every single time you go out on the road. This includes urban areas.
I’ve owned an F150 and an R1T and for camping, overlanding, snow trips, etc the Rivian is hands down the most capable vehicle I have ever driven. You couldn’t pay me to go back to a Ford
We recently had a guy drive 146 miles out of the cascades, to Oregon City, to get a replacement radiator for a Jeep after a trailside wreck. We don't know how to fix a Rivian when it breaks down, or where to get parts.
Parts availability for a new and/or low volume vehicle is always tough whether it's an EV or otherwise.
But process of replacing a radiator on a Rivian really isn't any different than replacing one on a Jeep.
Most people who work on any vehicle don't know what the fuck they're doing, there's plenty of people in Autozone buying their 3rd O2 sensor for their Jeep that's throwing a P0420 as well.
The use-a-truck-as-a-truck market seems too small to even address…
Given US pricing of $6.50 diesel, the cyber truck with 11,000 lb towing capacity actually makes a lot of sense.
It just looks too weird.
People who are towing a lot may like the idea of electric. However they need range, and EVs when towing don't deliver. It is too bad, I'd like a electric truck, but when I tow I'm trying to get someplace and EVs don't deliver.
It doesn't help that nearly all chargers are arranged such that I'd block important parts of the parking lot for half an hour if I was towing when I needed a charge, then I have a complex back out (where something is behind me that I need to avoid). Most gas stations are designed so my trailer might block a pump from someone else using it but otherwise I'm not in the way.
> People who are towing a lot may like the idea of electric. However they need range, and EVs when towing don't deliver. It is too bad, I'd like a electric truck, but when I tow I'm trying to get someplace and EVs don't deliver.
Depends on why you're towing something. My brother-in-law is a contractor, for example, and the first thing you do when you start your own contracting business is buy a big ass pickup and a trailer to haul all of your tools and materials to your job sites.
Agreed on the chargers though, sometimes it's difficult to use a charger even with a normal-sized car just because every manufacturer wants to put the ports in a different, weird and quirky place on EVs.
The range loss on an EV is comparable to the 5 MPG you are going to get with a 3/4 ton truck towing anything 10k pounds as well
The only actual difference is time you need to charge. Pull through charging stalls are ubiquitous where I live
And I just don’t know…how often are people towing loads over 100 miles regularly for this to be a problem? Where I live I see pavement princesses towing the occasional boat or landscapers towing gear and rocks.
Neither of those is going to max out the range on an EV truck in an average day
The standard F-150 uses gasoline, not diesel. Not that gas isn't expensive right now either.
I've been seeing more and more JAC small pickups (I'm in Austin). They use small diesel engines. I kind of thought the era of small diesel engines was over (thanks VW), but maybe it's coming back?
I know people with Rivians and F-150 Lightnings and they love them.
Indeed that target audience (people that actually need trucks) should be looking at a diesel vw passat from the 00's instead.
Truly terrible for pedestrians. Modern trucks are already death traps with their super high front grills, multiplying the weight compounds the problem.
Vehicle mass is a significant factor in collisions between vehicles because taking two thirds of the impact is a meaningful increase over taking half of it. Heavier vehicles are much more dangerous to lighter vehicles.
It's basically irrelevant in pedestrian collisions because the pedestrian is already taking ~95% of the impact even from a lighter car and the <5% difference between that and an arbitrarily heavier vehicle is completely dwarfed by any of the other variables like the speed of the collision. For a pedestrian it's better to get hit by a freight train at 35 MPH than a 3000 pound vehicle at 39 MPH.
I was thinking of F = MA, where mass seems important here. Is this the wrong mental model?
Edit: okay I get it, the human acceleration from impact basically asymptotes.
You're solving for force when the thing that causes the damage is (very rapid) acceleration. The total acceleration comes from the initial difference in speed between the two things that collide and the proportion of the acceleration applied to each object is inversely proportional to their relative masses.
If they have the same mass then they each take half. If one of them is 19 times heavier then the other one takes 95% of the acceleration. If one of them is six hundred trillion times heavier then the other one takes ~100% of the acceleration, but this is still only ~5% more than taking 95%.
Consider what happens if you walk at 2 MPH into a concrete pillar which is fully anchored into the Earth. The mass of the Earth makes the mass of your body look like zero with some zeros after it, so are you immediately crushed? No, but get launched out of a cannon into the pillar at 200 MPH and you're dead even if it's not anchored into the Earth.
> Consider what happens if you walk at 2 MPH into a concrete pillar which is fully anchored into the Earth.
Excellent thought experiment and this helped it click.
You think cutting the weight of the truck is going to make it safer for pedestrians?
This is the silliest argument against the Cybertruck, IMO. Its forward visibility is significantly better than other full-sized trucks, yet people continue to bring up pedestrian safety every time the Cybertruck is mentioned.
Sure, I meant htis for electric trucks in general, and I was wrong about the physics anyway.
The BYD Shark is all the rage in Asia.
F150 Lightning was ruined by the dealership network who had 0 interest or financial incentive to sell them. When they did sell them, they added huge markups.
The quality of the vehicle is actually quite high.
I wonder how much of this is due to politics. I always thought it wouldn't matter much to most people but earlier this year I tried to convince my wife to get a model Y for the family and there was no convincing her. The interesting thing is she doesn't even care about politics but just didn't want to buy a car that is associated to any political view. I guess that happens when you take such a hard stance, you alienate one entire side and the people in the middle that wanna stay out of it.
> she doesn't even care about politics
hmm the rest of the post is describing someone that does care about politics
I noticed that the cyberpunk wedge cars that inspired it are 2 seaters… maybe this shape isn't right for much larger cars?
DeLorean is the real life 80s reference of course, but in cyberpunk revival media like the coupe in Ghost in the Shell 2017, the spinner in Blade Runner 2049—those cars are all much smaller cabins than the cybertruck
The first two series of the Lotus Esprit had similar design language as well.
The dimensions felt off to me. I had it as a loaner and enjoyed it a bit, especially since it had HW4. But I would never buy one.
The size is just too impractical. It would never fit in my garage. On top of that, the standby drain was significant. Just sitting idle, it would lose 10 to 20 miles of range.
I would have liked a 3-row SUV based on the Cybertruck; but the Cybertruck was just too expensive to be competitive. At least the Model Y's price dropped (right after I bought one) to something more reasonable.
What's most frustrating is that I had to trade in my Model 3 for a 3-row SUV, and Tesla just didn't have anything competitive in that segment.
They wanted Cybertruck for the exoskeleton, made giga casting instead and then proceeded to never make the cheaper versions, hence never reached units of scale as well as a bigger market. I do believe they could have avoided this but instead stayed in the luxury market.
You could run much of this discussion about the hummer. Not all of course, because a bunch of half and mis truths about EV are being floated.
90% of this is "I liked it" or "I didn't like it"
The rest is "it didn't suit this use case so it's useless"
Fwiw I thought it was stupid, but it doesn't define what an EV truck can do, or their utility. I've no problem if people poke fun at them. I've no problem if people like them.
Why would they focus on "cybercab" over this. Everything that makes the cybercab cool will never be legal in a consumer product. Cybertruck is definitely more useful to an average person.
An average person has no use for a truck that costs more than twice what an average person makes in a year and half or more what an average person spends on an average house
the economics of Tesla , a company with lots of capital, renting out their fleet make more sense in a market of consumers with little disposable income.
I liked the styling. Thought about getting one. Got a chance to get in one the other day. and it was so uncomfortable. felt like sitting on a park bench. I thought this was supposed to be not a real pickup. Rather a suburban big old thing with blade runner styling and reviews said lots of comfort. No, just a big old vehicle, that's not even that roomy on the inside (hip room felt like that of my old integra), with the comfort of an 80's pick up. not much of a point to it.
That’s unfortunate, I quite enjoyed the brutality of its aesthetic.
I don't like the design but don't hate it either. At least the jaggedness is for a functional reason. There are uglier cars, about 10 of which are from Kia and Hyundai.
We don't even realize how big production of optimus and cybercab are going to be. They need to make room.
Fun fact from Denmark: you could never buy one here anyway. It never got EU type approval, mostly due to pedestrian safety rules (sharp edges, rigid steel body). Curious whether that limited market was part of why volumes stayed low.
I had a pre-order. The reason I canceled was because the delivered product had a lot less range and was much more expensive than previously announced.
There were other things that contributed to the decision, too: the announced "stressed skin" exoskeleton was panned in favor of adhering the body panels to the body with glue, it became clear that Tesla's profit and valuation were funding Elon's right-wing political project, and I would have preferred a solid-axle design.
The absurdity was not what was wrong with it. It's OK to be absurd. I really liked the stainless steel design. Less trail damage when off-roading and no need to worry about paint scratches causing body rust. The door wedge design? Meh. But it enabled the stainless steel body.
In the end, I want what the Cybertruck failed to deliver: a full-size electric pickup at a good price with excellent range. I currently have my eyes on the RAM REV. We'll see if that one gets axed, too.
https://archive.is/Q8NSx
Disabling Javacsript lets you read the article already. There's no need to visit archive.today, where you participate in executing DDOS attacks against anyone who criticizes the site's creator.
I think what also contributed to the commercial failure is that it actually looked great at the early prototype stage, but the production car turned out to be uglier. Most people don't notice this, but they feel it subconsciously.
Go find early pre-production Cybertruck photos and compare with the actual prod car. It became subtly bulkier, uglier, less streamlined, and IRL it looks even worse than on the photos. Probably they had to do this due to production difficulties or to meet some standards, or to cut costs, whatever. But it was a mistake.
I live in SF (and sometimes NYC), so those are the only places I've really seen them. They're enormous, and incredibly unwieldy in an urban environment.
I think they'll be a hard sell in rural areas, too... where the Cybertruck isn't really competitive with traditional pickups for the actual things they're used for.
It's cool, though. Even if you don't like the look, there's something whimsical about seeing a vehicle that doesn't look like every other car on the road. I just don't think there's a big enough market for it.
Truly one of the most baffling stories in recent automotive history. All they had to do was make a normal pickup truck with Tesla tech. Hell, go ahead and use it as the testbed for 48V, steer-by-wire and whatever else if you want to - but the amount of time and money wasted to make what was in the end an absolute monstrosity that failed to deliver on any of its price, performance and range promises strains credulity. Cybertruck is the most visible inflection point marking Elon's descent into madness.
They look quite silly but I really love it when a car manufacturer takes a chance and does something out of the ordinary. In a few years these are going to be really popular at car shows.
They can cancel it, but it will always symbolize the time period and culture associated with its creator, that probably just ended. I bet future generations will use its image that way.
Hopefully they make some sort of "Signature Edition" version as a last hurrah.
The upsides were the steer by wire which once you drive it feels amazing and an exterior surface unlike painted vehicles you can choose to neglect and it doesn't matter.
The major downside was the price. I feel if they could have gotten it in the mid/low 40K range for an entry model it would have sold more units.
I still hold that if they made a cyber van with steer by wire and an exterior surface, it would have sold like hot cakes. An electric van with long range, tight turning radius, and durable kid resistant body panels? Yes please.
Yeah something that fits below the large Rivian van. Something similar to the small Nissan work vans.
I suspect the semi truck will be next on the chopping block. Tesla being merged into Spacex would have resulted in the shutting down of the car business and a focus on robots. I doubt that robots will be a money maker, it's only useful on mars because people can't live there.
I'm not a fan, but I was hopeful that the direct sales model would drive others to confront the dealership tax. Ford floated the idea with the Lightning, but faced a mutiny.
I am the exact target audience of their new Fathom, but I abandoned my preorder sign up process when I saw the phrase "dealerships set the final price".
It was a great idea, and there's some amazing technology in it, but it's absolutely terrible implementation.
May I post the comedic bit about cybertruck by Dan Docimo? I find it hilarious https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dax16Nxuu4b/?dlrf=MW43dms5M2d...
For posterity, the HN thread of the Cybertruck's announcement from 2019 (1765 points, 1943 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602437
It was absurd, which is fun actually.
But not useful. I don’t have truck use-cases.
The tech inside would have been way more useful inside a CyberVan or CyberSUV.
I don't understand why anyone ever bought one of these in the first place. Fads are a crazy thing.
simply put, they are ugly.
If they had made this an SUV the size of the Rivian R1S it would have sold far better. Big truck people weren't ready for this.
I've rented a Cybertruck, and whatever you think if you drive one you'll be blown away.
48v and other tech lives on in Semi and Cab https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-cybercab-48v-system-4...
Wow, its real! I just looked it up on iPhone.
Model S,X,3 was the plan of the founders of Tesla. Cybertruck was Elons plan.
but electric trucks are very successful in China. Why not in the rest of the market?
I think the cybertruck appeals to a very narrow market. It's too expensive for most people who just want a big vehicle to get groceries and run kids to around, and doesn't really have any qualities that make it useful for commercial use, outside of being a rolling billboard. Unless it just really appeals to you and you have cash to burn, I don't know why you'd buy a cybertruck over a Ram/Ford/GM. A RAM 1500 w/ etorque costs half a cyber truck and gets decent fuel mileage... If you need a work truck a RAM 3500 is cheaper and will reliably haul 30-40k loads 12 hours a day and the warranty isn't void the second your tires touch dirt.
It’s a status symbol masquerading as a utility vehicle.
And it failed at it too.
People who buy trucks as a status symbol want to be "tough". And Tesla clearly intended to appeal to "tough guys", it is big, powerful, and supposedly indestructible. Elon even twitted at some point that it would destroy the other car in a collision, a morally questionable comment, but the implications are clear, a though vehicle for people who don't give a fuck about others.
And then, they managed to break the unbreakable window during the presentation, followed by the rusty trucks, and most importantly, the whole fiasco with glued panels that came off. So, you market a tough vehicle, but it falls appart. Who is going to buy that?
also a status symbol inextricably linked to elon's "brand" which doesnt help
Aka 99% of trucks.
While we could quibble on the exact percentage, I think that's the point. Why spend $100K on an ugly status vehicle, when you could just get any half-ton pickup quad-cab short bed and prove to the world how big of a truck you have, but only spend $50-60K?!
The Cybertruck is weird and a "status" symbol, but most people want to fit in, but also have the "nicest" looking status symbol, so they convince themselves that "this particular truck" is really nice. (And also if I own it, it's clear I do lots of hard physical things.)
The Slate and Fathom are going to sell like hotcakes in the US.
I think the Fathom will outsell the Slate 10 to 1 despite costing more, because U.S. buyers have adapted to "luxury" in every trim level of vehicle. I mean, yes base level Corollas still sell quite well (but these days even those have features you dreamt about in a luxury sedan not too many decades ago.)
The Slate represents an ideology that combines the nostalgia of what trucks used to be (especially the Ford Ranger) with a modern EV powertrain, but most people don't actually want the stripped down basic vehicle, even if their eyes light up over the idea.
I also think that the reason we see so many crew cab trucks is because people are well and over the "move front seat forward and then squeeze yourself into the back" rear passenger experience the market used to accept when coupes and extended cab trucks had significant sales. The Slate not having 4 doors is going to be a big deficiency when it's cross-shopped against the Fathom.
> The Slate represents an ideology that combines the nostalgia of what trucks used to be (especially the Ford Ranger) with a modern EV powertrain, but most people don't actually want the stripped down basic vehicle, even if their eyes light up over the idea.
I have debated this extensively with some friends. I *jumped* at the slate pre-order precisely because it doesn't have any 'luxury' trim options. I don't want to pay out the nose for a fancy infotainment system that will use the cheapest possible under powered electronics from a decade ago, run a 10 year old version of android that spies on me, gets no useful updates...etc.
I certainly have my biases but I suspect that most people only _tolerate_ most of the painpoints w/ the various 'luxury' items in their cars and if given the opportunity to start simple and upgrade they would.
> but most people don't actually want the stripped down basic vehicle
Perhaps. But if you put two options side-by-side and show people what they get at the two different price points, I'd bet that the ~30k slate compared to the ~ 50k typical new car price will get a decent chunk of people thinking about what _else_ they could do with 20k in savings.
>I'd bet that the ~30k slate compared to the ~ 50k typical new car price will get a decent chunk of people thinking about what _else_ they could do with 20k in savings.
The overwhelming majority of new car purchases is the US aren’t based on sales price, but monthly payment.
For the vast majority of buyers, an extra $50 a month for some luxury features is the easiest upsell in the world. They simply don’t think through the savings, they think “I want heated seats, better sound, etc”
Everything that's cheap will sell like hotcakes, but that doesn't mean the companies selling them will make much profit from them.
There is more than one definition of "very successful". Maximizing shareholder value isn't everything.
Maximizing shareholder value is not the most important consideration. The most important consideration is don't go bankrupt. Once you have a product that sells, you can start asking, well how can I maximize shareholder value? But you have to make those sales in the first place or you're going to go bankrupt and that is far worse for shareholders than not getting maximum value.
Successful companies well understand they don't know exactly what maximizing shareholder value requires. They are always making small experiments to see what really works in the market. Many of those they know will fail and in turn cost shareholder value because of a bad investment. But you have to try bad investments in order to find one that is good.
It’s also important to remember that while some people talk like there’s a legal responsibility to maximize shareholders value which forces businesses to make decisions focused on short-term profits, those people are simply wrong. There’s an extraordinary level of deference given to executive discretion which means it’s quite rare to see successful lawsuits for anything plausibly good-faith. For example, right now there’s a fad to lay people off but any business which chooses instead to invest in their capacity is unlikely to even be threatened with a shareholder lawsuit because no court in the country is going to say that “we are investing in long-term capacity” was clearly wrong.
Constant growth is capitalism and it's so damned flawed.
I wonder if anybody wrote about this problem, like, a century and a half ago.
High volume, low margin is a completely legit strategy.
That works for foodstuffs but not the manufacturing industry. Because you know people need to eat, always. They don't need a new truck all the time.
I have a slate preorder but it's a niche vehicle. It's a small 2 door 2wd pickup that can't meaningfully tow and has a 200 mi range.
It's not going to appeal to people who want a truck as a symptom of fragile insecurities around their masculinity and that's a biiiig part of the US truck market
I don't think this is a failure of electric trucks, it's a failure of this specific design.
Look at the F150 lightening to see the failure of electric trucks. Chevy, Dodge and Ford all have, and it shows. Chevy's electric Silverado has a lot more range because more people want a truck for towing than the 1% that hacker news claims, and so range became and issue. Ford and Dodge are instead looking at plug in hybrids for the future: use an engine when towing, and battery for acceleration and shorter trips.
Yes those are better examples. But the cybertruck situation was sui generis.
Trucks are a status symbol in the USA. EVs were becoming acceptable in the mainstram, hence the initial surge in sales, but that has cooled off since 2024. Now very few outside of the big tech cities are spending money on EVs. Hence the fate of the electric F-150 as well.
Cybertruck is only available in countries that don't want EVs.
That's electric semi trucks. The market for pickup trucks in general in China would be pretty small.
The Cybertruck is not very good at being a truck, but it is very good at being a social signifier.
This isn't about the idea of electric trucks.
This is specifically about the Tesla Cybertruck, which has been shown to be fairly shoddy in construction AND is tied to a very, very divisive figure.
Overpriced, not good at being a truck, eDong, yep.
Because cybertruck is a bad truck.
It's also illegal to sell in EU because of how bad it is for pedestrian safety.
bad truck suggests it's bad at being truck not just... at everything related to transport
Most vehicles are used to get one person to and from work every day. There are a lot of people who don't have kids or only have one kids and so they don't need use passenger space or hauling capacity. The Cybertruck is aerodynamically terrible, but if people are not using it as a truck, well I guess it's transport that works for them.
However, people are talking about the same truck as if it is a truck. And it's a terrible truck for people who need a truck. On the other hand, a lot of other trucks are also terrible at being a truck for the people who need a truck. You have to go into the three-quarter ton or one-ton range to find a decent truck these days, even though a modern half-ton probably has more power and weight carrying capacity than a 30-year-old three-quarter ton truck. The way it's set up means it's not going to work as well as a truck. The 30-year-old truck is going to have a longer bed, which is something that someone who needs a truck is going to want in the truck.
In Europe most of the people who in US actually need trucks just use vans instead. Way more space and more protected from weather (and people)
Very frustrating that trucks have morphed into tank-like SUVs with small beds tacked on back. Expensive and has every fancy feature one could want ... except the thing that makes it a pick-up truck
A lot of that is US tax code making it cheaper if the car (truck) is big enough.
I have very mixed feelings about the Cybertruck. Personally I absolutely hate it, it's just not my cup of tea and I would never in a million years buy one. However as a general lover of cars, I have to appreciate just how striking the design is and how it was a complete departure from pretty much any other car on the road.
There's nothing quite like the Cybertruck and I don't think there ever will be again.
Largely agree with your mixed feelings. When the Cybertruck was revealed, I thought it was atrociously ugly, but I appreciated something radically different in a market of converging (and IMO boring) styles. I could see the style being more successfully applied as a Cybercar / Cybercoupe.
Brings me to a point I'd like to make: it boggled my mind that Tesla decided to execute the 'Cyber' aesthetic via a pickup truck, particularly after the US auto industry ramped up marketing the pickup truck's familiar shape as a cultural facet during/after the Great Recession and the fuel economy regulation changes.
Tesla could've capitalized on the billions Ford, Chevy, Dodge, and others spent in the 2010s marketing pickup trucks as God's gift to humanity, but instead decided -that- was the best market to try a complete novelty in. It makes no rational sense -- I've heard it ultimately came down to Musk stubbornly wanting the Cybertruck, but I don't know if that's factual.
1793954210 | Tesla Ends Cybertruck Production in 2027 to Make Room for Cybercab | https://gearmusk.com/2026/11/06/tesla-ends-cybertruck/ | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50389692
1793962910 | Tesla to axe Cybertruck as Musk shifts focus to robotics and AI | https://www.ft.com/content/8ec923a8-a581-4995-a92c-c08e16bf2... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50390828
1793967802 | Tesla Winding Down Production of Cybertruck, Musk Says | https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/tesla-winding-down-produc... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50391523
1793970500 | Tesla to wind down Cybertruck production as Elon Musk focuses on robotics and AI | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/nov/06/tesla-to-... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50391890
1793977232 | Tesla to Wind Down Cybertruck Production in Texas Next Year, Elon Musk Says | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-11-06/tesla-to-... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50393135
1793978926 | Tesla to pull the plug on Cybertruck after years of poor sales | https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50393521
1793979009 | The Tesla Cybertruck Is Dead | https://www.thedrive.com/news/the-tesla-cybertruck-is-dead | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50393543
1793981154 | Tesla Ends Cybertruck Production | https://www.heise.de/en/news/Tesla-ends-Cybertruck-productio... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50394130
1793983493 | Musk Called It Tesla's 'Best Product Ever. Now the Cybertruck Is Being Scrapped | https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/musk-called-it-teslas-bes... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50394764
1794001600 | Tesla's Cybertruck heads for an exit after years of hype and division | https://apnews.com/article/cybertruck-cybercab-discontinued-... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50398946
1794004630 | Tesla shutting down Cybertruck production and moving it to the Cybercab | https://theinference.org/article/tesla-will-end-cybertruck-p... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50399429
I love my Cybertruck. It's absolutely amazing for road trips with my dog. I watch movies and work on my projects (using a voice app I built) while FSD drives. It's basically a mobile apartment for me. I sleep comfortably in the truck bed when needed. I installed MOLLE panels on the L-tracks in the bed and 3D printed various accessories.
Sad to see it go but glad I got mine. Oh and kids love it. My Sentry mode clips are full of kids asking their parents to take pics with it.
your car automatically photographs children without their consent?
Hot take. Do doorbell cameras next
not a fan of those either!
I imagine we will see it reincarnated into a moon rover variant.
Tesla's insistence on disrupting themselves is exactly why they're going to be successful.
One of the dumbest, worst vehicles ever. The very symbol of a dreadful, wasteful, degenerate era for our species
Archive link
https://archive.is/Q8NSx
Winding down production of this abomination isn't enough. The ones already on the road should be rounded up, crushed, and recycled. This is urban blight on wheels. Citizens have a right to streets free of these eyesores.
Musk was a fool to mistake the hollering of a small group of enthusiasts for that of the truck-buying U.S. population. Nobody was actually wanting for the CyberTruck. He should've listened to his marketing people and not be guided by social media and his right-wing instinct.
Then again, he's a con-man who's now quietly distancing himself from CyberTruck ("I had nothing to do with it") and moving on to the next con-trick: the CyberCab.
Tons of people wanted (and still want) a CyberTruck, but at something like a $40k price point.
Those people are just as loud as others, but never actually buy, because a $40k CyberTruck never existed.
I would want one for $40k in Europe.
thank god that's not happening.
Well, if you're dreaming, instead of a cyber truck at 40K, wouldn't you want instead a Chauffeured Rolls-Royce and the Swedish bikini team to keep it maintained?
That depends.
When I want to go to the symphony I want a chauffeured Rolls-Royce. I don't care how it is maintained, that is the chauffeurs job. If I want to see under dressed girls I'll go to a strip club after if, or maybe hire an escort to sit next to me.
When I want a truck to "go mudding", the fun is driving it through the mud. Maybe my chauffeur is tows the truck to the mud pit, but I'm getting it stuck in the mud myself. Sometimes the local cheerleaders are holding a fund raiser and I'll pay them to clean the truck after I'm done.
When I want a truck because I need to haul things - I want to pay someone else to take care of it when I'm not around.
In reality I'm not rich enough for the above. I do a lot of maintenance myself because I can't afford to pay someone. I have one vehicle that is a bad compromise for everything because I can't afford more.
In reality I have moral objections to under dressed girls and so I'm not going to the strip club or hiring escorts. But if I was that type I wouldn't be paying them to maintain my car. I have had the cheerleaders clean my car while I watched, but I wasn't paying them to be "eye candy" even though I did enjoy looking, and the next week is was the boys wrestling team (which I don't enjoy looking at) that got paid just as much for the same job.
In reality I'd prefer public transportation, but that is a different story.
That would have been antithetical to his existence.
I’m sure we can trust a sharp business man like Musk to learn from his mistakes and come up with better ideas
Btw have you seen the roadster??
The Cybertruck is the symbol of the Trump era. It's over.
Original announcement by Elon: https://xnotme.com/elonmusk/status/2118591788701421573#m
Not worth clicking.
No added information, with a thread full of ad hominem attacks
Worth clicking. Ton of people who actually want the cybertruck to continue. I can't believe there are still people who still didn't realize what colossal idiot Musk is.
it has to be said that it was the most revolutionary car design in the past decade
best vehicle ever engineered
Sad, but reminds me of the Model S line teardown in making space. CB truly was ahead its time in how it pushed Tesla's tech, and will always be futuristic. Still, I can't help but to feel like it died too early. Its spirit lives on in the Roadster, and I sure hope this won't be the last "truly exceptional" Tesla among their "quality sleeper" EV's.
No other car is as awe-striking to see on the streets, especially in the EU. This will be the Mustang Fastback or Testarossa of the 2040's ...
I mean as much as I love thd idea of actually doing something bonkers, the lack of sales seemed inevitable to most I assume, so that should come as no surprise. Should have stayed a concept car.
Like most things it came down to price most of all. Cars are way too expensive in North America.
Even if it was half the cost, say $40K rather than $80K, I think most people in the market for a vehicle would choose something else!
I wouldn’t be surprised if cost were the only reason its sales weren’t even lower. If it’s expensive it’s at least a plausible status symbol. At a reasonable price it’s just an incompetently designed utility vehicle.
As this is a thread of its discontinuation, might be worth looking at the thread of its announcement.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602437
Haven’t explored it yet, but it might be interesting to see how the sentiment shifted.
Open source it entirely from parts to software, and let whoever wants to maintain it themselves to keep it.
Cybertuck should do a security check for all the new models.
Behold the Toyota Hilux [1], a truck so reliable that it is the truck of choice in many developed nations and even less developed ones. It's so cheap and reliable it became the platform for a war [2]. It also has a truck bed equivalent to a Ford F150, a vehicle significantly larger. But you can't buy a new Hilux or equivalent in the US because cars younger than 25 years cannot legally be imported [3] (to stop grey imports on Mercedes in the 1980s, originally) and because of CAFE standards [4].
Electric vehicles obviously don't have the hurdle of meeting emissions standards so Tesla, or any other company really, had (and has) the opportunity to create a small, cheap, mass market utility truck that no gas-powered vehicle can compete with. This is what the Cybertruck should've been.
There have been breakdowns of the Cybertruck and it is such an incredibly bad design. Things like the weight of stainless steel panels but with an aluminum frame. Why is that a problem? Because aluminum is prone to catastrophic failure with the up and down motion of towing a heavy load than stainless steel simply isn't [5].
The rumor has been that the only thing propping up Cybertruck demand is Elon forcing his own companies like SpaceX to buy them [6]. Other than that, the Cybertruck became a weird political statement [7]. Those people are getting crucified on resale. It's even a trend on Tiktok and elsewhere to watch these trade in videos. People who paid $150k+ are getting <$70k less than 2 years later.
Anyway, I'm shocked no US manufacturer is tackling the EV small utility truck market. Yes there was the F150 Lightning but it's still too big (and thus expensive).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Hilux
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
[3]: https://www.octane-magazine.com/articles/features/usa-25-yea...
[4]: https://www.thedrive.com/news/heres-how-regulations-accident...
[5]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nZcb9TTyneFbxiDav/the-giga-p...
[6]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-16/tesla-lea...
[7]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/02/12/tesla-...
https://www.slate.auto/ ?
Oh man, I was wondering if anyone was gonna bring up Slate.
I try not to get excited about stuff, but the idea of The Next Big Thing in Cars being a total lack of garbage nonsense screens and giving us back CRANK CRANK WINDOWS -- this is pure joy.
Wheels. Seats. Motor[1]. Box to keep rain off. Done.
Oh you attached a bed to that? Double awesome.
[1] Enough top end cruise speed for American interstates.
> But you can't buy a new Hilux or equivalent in the US
A Tacoma is basically the US model of the Hilux.
The Tacoma is more like the modern Hilux. I should've been more specific. The 1980s and 1990s Hilux weighed in at 1000-1200kg. Now it's 1700-2100kg. It's a lot bigger truck. Those 1980s and 1990s trucks were indestructible and so easy to service.
Now I get why the gas powered Hilux has changed. Emissions standards have changed. Fuel efficiency is more important. Modern cars are full of computers and microcontrollers. But an EV is relatively simple. It's one of the big advantages. Yes you have an OS and it's not just turning the ignition but the drive system itself is fairly simple, the thing that turns battery power into movement (compared to ICEs). No moving parts (in the engine), basically.
You could absolutely make a small EV utility truck. Remember that part of the reason why people were excited about the Cybertruck when it was announced was the price point (~$35k). Of course it turned out to be 3 times that.
Look at what BYD is doing [1]. Now these are PHEVs rather than pure EVs. Other automakers are making smaller pure EV trucks.
[1]: https://www.carscoops.com/2025/12/byd-new-compact-pickup-pro...
> A Tacoma is basically the US model of the Hilux.
This is a very common misconception Americans believe about the hilux. I’ve owned multiple generations of both on different continents.
The Tacoma is much heavier, but has a much lower payload rating. It has way less torque, and gets much worse fuel economy. The Tacoma only comes with a regular bed- no cab chassis, no tray back, etc.
The Tacoma is much more expensive. The Tacoma only exists in two countries. The hilux is one of only a few truly global vehicles.
One is a genuine work utility vehicle, one is a lifestyle vehicle.
They have never shared a frame, engine, transmission, axles or body panels.
They are not related, and are not similar.
Fun while it lasted
Oh! Oh!
Back to the Future #4
Can’t wait to see it!
CT looks too sharp
I always stare at them and wonder who designed them. Hideous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPc-VEqBPHI
And also, who would buy one?
Lots of people, based on the number of them I see on the road.
if it was a hit, they might not be cutting production.
The Cybertruck wasn't really designed as a volume item, it was designed as the testbed for Tesla's next gen tech (ethernet-based fieldbus, 48V tech). You can do only so much in the lab, and sometimes you have to push your tech into production to find the last few% of failures, which will cost you dearly if you actually put them into your volume sellers.
I mean it's probably not that comforting for owners to unknowingly have signed up for a beta test, but that was the plan for Tesla for a while with the Cybertruck.
This was also the reason for sloppy stuff like steel panels glued to the aluminium frame, and not following up on their initial promises - the car morphed from a serious project into a low volume testbed sometime during its production.
Tesla seems to be killing its non volume cars the S and X are dead as well, I've heard rumors the Model 3 might be on its way out.
As a Tesla owner and fan, their 5 year consumer strategy is unclear. Their 3 upscale / luxury products have been canceled, and there's no clear "growth" roadmap for their existing owners. And although they have exceptional technology, innovation for the Tesla badge has stalled.
I can tell they are likely investing all of their production capacity into Cybercabs, in order to tap into a growing rental market (mostly short term, possibly some long term), and adjust to shrinking vehicle ownership.
But as someone who enjoys driving, car ownership, road trips, spontaneity -- I don't have a clear picture of what my next Tesla purchase would be in 5 years.
The wrapped versions of them looked very cool imo. Without wrap, they looked like a fridge.
It's good to dare to try things more than a little different.
Who would think we could get satellite internet that works?
I can only believe this car is unpopular if I step outside of my mental bubble. In suburban Washington DC I see these things everywhere.
I love that they took a swing for the fences. Car makers are so fucking safe these days. Sadly it didn’t land, but it’s awesome that it exists. I think if it had used a more conventional design it would have done so much better. Owners report an incredible driving experience. I also think battery technology held it back. It was originally advertised as having much better towing range, and production came in very underwhelming. This made it much less appealing as a utility vehicle. It ended up being used for picking up groceries and this wasn’t broad enough a market.
Not every swing is a home run. You can win with a few home runs or a lot of singles.
The only guaranteed way to lose is if you stop swinging. And Tesla has stopped swinging. They haven't revealed a mass market consumer vehicle since 2019.
There is some incredible technology in the Cybercab that allows them to be built cheaply in high volume. Instead Ford looks like they are going to be the first Western consumer vehicle out of the gate with the unboxed production method with their Ford Fathom. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese are ahead here too.
They've stopped swinging at the consumer market. I'd argue that they are swinging at other markets though (Cybercab and Optimus).
Hasn’t Musk been clear that he’s abandoning traditional passenger vehicles? He’s retooling for Cybercab and Optimus. Model Y and 3 are selling too well to abandon but there won’t be new models. We’d be lucky for refreshes.
Agreed, I love to see long shots even if they don't land, and in this case the price/performance fundamentals were likely the biggest problem. The "limited TAM for a bold stand-out design" was probably another, but Elon also didn't do any favors by vigorously adopting the opposite politics of his customers at the same time he was trying to launch a bold/iconic design.
Was the unusual design a "swing at the fences" or was it just a vanity project?
I disagree. Teslas used to be nice designs and pleasant to see on the street. Cybertruck and Cybercab designs are an affront. Intentionally ugly. I’m glad we don’t see a lot of trucks on the street, and I despair at the thought of millions of Cybercabs about.
The 3/Y and the screens had lots of design and product innovations. Iterating on those lines would’ve been quite nice.
The Y redesign to adopt more of the "Cyber" ethos is such a mistake. It won't age well, but then again neither will the brand.
Agree. I'm still quite fond of my earlier Model Y design.
For better "swing for the fences", have a look at Renault.
It's not admirable to "swing for the fences" if you're holding the bat upside-down
My five year old nephew will be devastated.
My kid loves these things too and I have to keep the eye-rolling to myself.
Future collectible market will be willing to pay good money for these! Big future nostalgia factor amongst 3-9 yos.
The Cybertruck is today’s DeLorean
However, if it showed up in a movie as a supposed “cool car” it wouldn’t be taken seriously
The DeLorean wasn't taken seriously when Back to the Future was released either... it looks like a cool car now, mostly because of the movie, but back then it was considered a joke of a car and the company went bankrupt less than two years after it began production.
Yeah I could totally see a similar trajectory for the cybertruck. I think it will be more popular in its death than it was in its life. Every elementary aged boy I know thinks it's really cool.
The Cybertruck will never be looked back on as a cool car, since it's existence is inextricably linked to doomed social and political movements. Like the ideology it represents, it's presence is impossible to ignore, but in the worst way possible. Plus it's a shitty truck.
It can never shake the "Ugh, get a load of this guy" factor.
The owner has not (yet) been arrested for cocaine trafficking, though.
(The history of John DeLorean is quite the read!)
The DeLorean was yesterday's Tucker Torpedo.
no one here will say it because the Musk glazing is crazy, but it was always his own little pet project, he really pushed for it and now it's obvious that it's stupid and a failure and he was wrong for entertaining this idea
Headline of article is: "RIP Cybertruck. You Were Unloved, Unwanted, and Utterly Absurd"
No point in editorializing it.
concerning?
Truly the peak of 2020s antisocial car design. The car looks designed to plow through other vehicles, barriers, and pedestrians without slowing down to count the bodies. "Bulletproof bodypanels" is only a selling point on a mass production car if you routinely piss people off enough to make them grab iron. Folks who need pickup trucks for the utility they provide have stuck with trucks that are actually fit for purpose. It was a way to signal to the world that you had extremely poor judgement and low standards.
I feel like cybertruck’s main issue is that driving one is a political statement. Maybe not intended. A lot of people just think they’re neat.
But where I live (deep blue territory) most people would not be caught dead driving Musk’s favorite car around
There are plenty of people who drive pickups because they like them, not because they fulfil a utilitarian purpose, and not all of them are assholes.
I would say the issue is more that there has been little to no progress in mainstream consumer car aesthetics in the past 25 years. It used to be that you could clearly tell a 50s car from a 60s car from a 70s car from an 80s car, etc. Everything from the past 25 years or so is pretty indistinguishable, so something comes along with a clear but possibly misguided aesthetic vision, its naturally going to appeal to some people.
> Truly the peak of 2020s antisocial car design
Don't speak too soon, we have a few more years to go.
They must have run out of parking at SpaceX...
Im curious about the timing of this announcement.
On the surface, it seems to take the wind out of their sails.
They told us the cybertruck was awesome.
They told us flying cars soon.
Now we see the fate of the first promise.
I would have delayed this announcement for as long as possible after the flying car show from a PR perspective.
Which makes me think this announcement is throwing a bone to the financial bean counters ahead of the potential merger with SpaceX.
Cleaning the companies books of fat before the big game.
You have it backwards.
The Musk strategy is to quietly drop failures/broken promises from a previous hype cycle after kicking off a brand new hype cycle to take its place.
This is entirely consistent with his tried and true strategy to constantly redirect attention forward to the distant future, and never stay idle long enough to encourage looking back at the ever growing pile of ideas that didn't work out.
Aw yes, I have it backwards, because I was thinking of the public.
And this strategy isnt Musks. Hes copying politicians and government. It's a very old strategy. Someone even wrote a song about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate_the_Positive
You've got to ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive
E-lim-i-nate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mr. In-Between
They have also renamed the 'Full Auto Driving' feature to 'Driving Assist'.
Literally nothing Tesla promised is coming true.
It's called Supervised Full Self Driving (FSD) and that is an accurate name given it controls every aspect of the vehicle's operation, only requiring the driver to pay attention as a supervisor. And, essentially, the same software and hardware available on a Model 3 and Model Y is present on the CyberCabs that are driving people around a few cities, now, without input mechanisms. Elon is a PoS, and it took a decade longer than he said, but the cars are driving themselves.
> It's called Supervised Full Self Driving (FSD)
Not anymore, now its "Assisted Driving"
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
It's Tesla Assisted Driving in Europe. In the US, it's still FSD.
Yes thankyou for confirming my point. How did I know you would come and be pedantic about it?
I live in Europe, and here its not called Full Self Driving because regulators disagree with you that the car is driving itself. Therefore your original statement of "It's called Supervised Full Self Driving (FSD) and that is an accurate name given it controls every aspect of the vehicle's operation" is not true here at all.
If the US is happy with Elon lying about his cars abilities then thats on them. Not surprising really judging by the mess that is the USA in recent years.
European regulation is a joke, that why they are failing, look at the riots in France, businesses strangled by regulation.
> businesses strangled by regulation
Trumps current mess with huge increases of cost of living, and subsequent popularity decline is an example of what happens when you let business run free.
North Korea it is then
This isn’t news to anyone following the business. I’m pretty sure it was announced months ago that model X and Cybertruck (and maybe Model S too) were being discontinued.
And Model 3 and Y have always been 95%+ of the cars Tesla delivered.
It was also mentioned in the Roadster presentation that the Roadster would be the only nonautonomous car produced by Tesla long-term.
Not everyone may have seen Robby Roadster's famous presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/31x-4YJUBNE
*flying car shaped air tank and thrusters
I'm convinced that Elon made it just because he thought it would be funny. "Let's make a truck that looks like it came out of a 90s low-polygon video game! That'll be hilarious!" He never cared for one moment if it was actually a good product.
The poor people that bought them were the butt of his joke.
No, he legitimately thought it was edgy and cool. He has the taste and desires of a 10 year old.
It is cool, in terms of it doesn't care what people think and doesn't mind people hating it (like the parent post).
There's nothing wrong with nostalgia and the Cybertruck felt like it was from Hard Drivin' or 4D Sports Driving/Stunts.
The first Tesla was based on a Lotus Elise. It was stunningly good looking. It changed people's minds that an electric car had to look like a glorified golf cart.
Later cars from Tesla looked more generic but still like looked like regular cars.
The cybertruck seems like a throwback to the old electric cars that looked like something out of nerd's sketchbook.
Compared to other pickups on the road, he's not wrong. It wasn't a good design, but the competition isn't very fierce.
The competition isn’t very fierce but he sure did squander his advantage in the EV segment to get beaten to market by a company that had never shipped an EV before
Rivian selling the first EV pickup truck even after Elon’s announcement of the cybertruck is pretty embarrassing
Just remember for anyone who buys a Model 3 or Model Y, every quality issue you experience is because they built this truck.
I ended up selling my Model 3 due to all the suspension and rattle issues, only 36k miles.
Tesla's forgotten how to make actual products people want to buy thanks to its meme stock status, government handouts, state & federal tax and carbon credits, not to mention the absurdly high tariffs on foreign competitors. It has received zero actual feedback from the market so the new products are based on ketamine high visions rather than market needs.
It'll probably be folded into SpaceX by the time the feedback arrives.
Who's doing the proofreading at Wired now? Is it all just AI?
Found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_scBKKHi7WQ
Tesla's forgotten how to make actual products people want to buy thanks to its meme stock status, government handouts, state & federal tax and carbon credits, not to mention the absurdly high tariffs on foreign competitors.
It has received zero actual feedback from the market so the new products are based on ketamine high visions rather than market needs.
It'll probably be folded into SpaceX by the time the feedback arrives.
So the big plan here is to just keep making Model 3 and Model Y?
I'm guessing the Model 3 will be next on the chopping block.
FSD is a serious moat. I'll give Tesla that. But they've really decided to stop being a car company. Maybe they're just scared of Chinese brands.
I think Musk has some specific things he'd like to do in the next 10 years and running a car company isn't something he cares about. So he's willing to destroy the company and the hard work of thousands of engineers, to build stupid robots, stupid cyber cabs, and phenomenal electric trucks in stupid angular wrapping.
I have no idea what the Tesla board is smoking, because Musk does not care about money, the company, its customers, or its employees.
in the past ten years:
60,000 cybertrucks? 350,000 model X 200,000 model S 0 roadsters 0 cybercabs (stupid)
a ton of model Y, which is why nobody wants one but are forced to buy it anyway because of FSD.
it's amazing how one guy gets to destroy an iconic car company and absolutely nobody in the organization pushes back.
Why would they stop making the model 3? It still sells well and many markets aren’t crossover obsessed like the Americans are.
>The US EV maker only began delivering the Cybertruck to customers in late 2023. According to Kelley Blue Book, the company only sold 20,237 Cybertrucks in the US last year, down 48% from 38,965 in 2024. Before the pickup truck launched, Musk had predicted annual sales of 250,000 units.
ouch
I have an acquaintance who bought more than two cybertrucks at launch because they would be self-driving ubers making money while not in use.
They are not self driving.
They are not making money.
The Cybertruck should tell you how stupid Elon really is. Its a coffin on wheels, and rightfully banned in the entire EU. His next stunt was to make a flying car, thats basically vaporware, and, also banned literally everywhere.
Ugliest car ever screaming insecure and politically controversial owner who can't shut his mouth, what could go wrong
They are probably the ugliest vehicles ever produced. They're an eyesore. Good riddance.
I can assure you there are much uglier vehicles out there. I once stopped at a stoplight and there was this car ahead of me, I don't know which make or model but when I saw it I just laughed out so loud. I think it was Korean or Japanese, but I'm not sure.
You rarely see them, probably because they're so dog-ugly that hardly anyone buys them.
No Wired love for the Incel Camino? The Deplorean?
side-topic: why trucks are so popular (especially USA)? Is it all in the fake testosterone virtue signalling and pretending to be hard working country people?
To me trucks are the most useless type of vehicle apart from niche utilitarian cases in farming or construction. Super heavy, gas guzzling, open bed, compromised handling, pedestrian crushing death machine.
If you want big family hauler, grocery getter: mini-vans, wagons.
If you are in trades: van, box truck or flatbed box truck (where bed is useful shape and size, and all sides can be removed if needed).
No, you don't need 3 tonne vehicle with bajillion horsepower as a daily, because you may need to pull a trailer with your inflatable dinghy once in a two years.
If you want truck adjacent vehicle, get Toyota 4runner or Highlander. Humongous cars, vast and closed cargo space. It will pull a trailer, it will haul all your stuff and family.
Because vehicles are a compromise. A truck can do everything a sedan can. A sedan cannot do everything a truck can. A flatbed truck can do more than a smaller truck - but it also is bigger and not easy to drive because of the size. The costs to own extra vehicles is very high and so people won't own different a vehicle for each use (renting is not a good answer - too often I've gone to rent something and it was sold out. Also most rentals have restrictions on use)
> To me trucks are the most useless type of vehicle apart from niche utilitarian cases in farming or construction. Super heavy, gas guzzling, open bed, compromised handling, pedestrian crushing death machine. If you want big family hauler, grocery getter: mini-vans, wagons.
Minivans and trucks get similar fuel mileage. For the average family there are not enough kids to need a minivan.
> If you are in trades: van, box truck or flatbed box truck (where bed is useful shape and size, and all sides can be removed if needed).
Obviously you are not in the trades and don't know anyone in them. I've heard plenty of people in the trades debate the merits of truck vs van. They are compromises and there is no clear winner.
> you don't need 3 tonne vehicle with bajillion horsepower as a daily, because you may need to pull a trailer with your inflatable dinghy once in a two years.
If I need to tow something even once every two years then I need to own a truck. I've tried to rent a truck to tow something - turns out most rental contracts don't allow towing. There are exceptions, but the cost is so high, and finding a place to rent is so inconvenient that I will just own my own truck instead - it is worth it.
> Obviously you are not in the trades and don't know anyone in them.
Well bold of you to assume anything about me.
Where I am from:
- not a single trades person came to my place or anyone I know of - with a truck. It's either van or box truck all the time;
- only personal connection for legitimate truck use I know is electricity line repair, because of true off-road needs and often start-stop type of work;
Only trucks (ala F150) I've seen are emotional support trucks with 6L V8 gas guzzling engines taking 2 spaces in the parking lots and constantly jumping over curbs due to abysmal turning radius and their ridiculous size, that never have seen a spade in their bed.
> If I need to tow something even once every two years then I need to own a truck.
No you don't. Any conventional SUV/wagon can have a hitch and easily tow. How do you think half of Dutch or British tow their mobile homes every July on their summer holidays? It's not 5.7L small block V8 - that's for sure.
I wasn't pro truck until I lived on an island with limited infrastructure. Once you need to take care of some of your own infra, a truck is a great tool, beating your full list. That said, a beater truck is generally preferred -- you want reliable, cheap and something that you don't care if it gets banged up.
Not a “truck guy” but I have a cybertruck because it’s the only self-driving electric car that has enough room to carry my family’s stuff when we go to the lake, ocean, camping, etc. My ideal car is a van or large SUV but there aren’t electric self-driving versions of those yet.
Well this thread has taught me that “I don’t like Elon, but “ appears to be the new pronouns for people that find it important to signal their left wing bona fides.
Honestly thought we’re done with that …
So this leaves Tesla with two car models, a Robotaxi that doesn't work very well, and a humanoid robot operation that didn't ship product on schedule[1]. Why is this worth a 1.4 trillion dollar market cap?
[1] https://optimusk.blog/blog/tesla-optimus-production-timeline...
Good riddance from the taped on glued on pump and dump scheme for fElon.
Can't believe I had to scroll down this far to see anything other than Musk bootlickers.
The cybertruck was announced like a bad meme and now dies as one too. What we see is the logical and long overdue conclusion of a story that lasted longer than it should have.
Good riddance.
We can add the truck’s 25,000 annual unit sales versus Musk’s 250,000 prediction to the long list of his other failed and bogus predictions. The top of that list has many contenders: date of mars colonization, date of driverless car, everything about his ridiculous tunnel system in Las Vegas. Yet the media regularly credulously report, “Elon Musk says…”.
I really just wanted a cyber van. Cheap driverless car for a distracted mom to haul a bunch of kids. Why didn’t they deliver that. The model X with the gull doors hit my head. The model y is too small. If Elon were a soccer mom it would be better.
Someone knows the government infinite money machine, which Tesla, SpaceX, Solar City, and many other Musk companies took advantage of, is about to get cut off.
What government money do you think Tesla gets? Consumer tax credits went away a long time ago, and that benefit went to customers, not Tesla.
A government credit still means Tesla gets paid the full price from a sale. So yes, Tesla got government money.
But yes, those credits have been vanishing for a while.
What a shame. They were a good way to filter out folks to avoid whenever you saw someone driving one.
I still remember the marketing for the Cybertruck. Tesla teased a partial neo-noir silhouette of the truck which had everyone guessing which part it belonged to. Childhood fantasies about Blade Runner designs were conjured in people’s imaginations. Fanboys were truly generous with the design expectations. Embarrassed to admit now, I did go to the unveiling and when it rolled out I thought this must be a gag and the real Blade Runner would follow any second now, only to realize that this ugly thing was it. If you could only see the collective shock amongst the attendees. Only the drunks were cheering. Then the boss had the designer throw a ball through the window. Twice.
(Edit: the actual designer had the assistant designer throw a ball through the window.)
They have big plans for optimus and cybercab that is going to blow our minds.
Oh, so where is this 1 or 2 million of reservations ? Would Musk lie about to investors ?
It's just mind blowing what this guy is getting away with. Hopefully not for long anymore.
No fan of Elon here but I prefer Cybertrucks to Hummers based solely on observed owner behavior. Hummer drivers are DICKS. Cybertruck drivers are just driving around in some metallic 3-D geometry with little (observable) ill intent
Elon truly was inspired by Delorean
That's disrespectful to a guy who made a nicer car and had a less destructive drug habit.
In what way? That's a strained way to poke fun at someone just because.
"That's gold, Jerry. Gold."
>"Elon truly was inspired by Delorean"
He wishes. Delorean is a modern classic, regardless of commercial success. Cybertruck will go down like the H1/H2; something entirely emblematic of the worst excesses in the time it was conceived and marketed in, that later generations will go "did they really think that was cool?".
A modern classic, thanks to Bob Zemeckis; without whom it would've been right up there with the Bricklin SV-1.
Setting aside JohnZ's personal failings, the car and its production was a catastrophe.
Hilariously the deloreon speedo didn’t even go up to 88
Part of that was a NHTSA rule that hilariously (from 79-82) made 85mph speedometers mandatory; but even later, because of tooling costs, those dials persisted.
Not that the DMC-1's PRV v6 and tall Renault 5-speed were gonna make getting to 85 easy...
I recently had a Tesla service call at my house (routine maintenance for my Y). He showed up in a darkly wrapped Cybertruck. It didn’t occur to me that they’re just dogfooding their own vehicles to use them up.
Hilarious but a logical end state option for them.
Why isn't Tesla responding to queries as to whether production will cease completely? Are they ignoring bad news and bad rap? Childish of them.
Tesla could simply come up with a more conventional looking EV pick-up truck of course.
The Ford F150 lightning was killed because of low demand and loosing the company money. That looked just like all the other F150s and that didnt help it. I dont see you criticising them them.
I don't see a reason why there isn't a market for a EV pickup truck. Maybe the American public simply isn't ready for it. Or the Lighting may have been too expensive compared to its ICE counterpart.
But the CyberTruck is just one man's doodle-after-an-acid-trip kind of design.
Yeah I agree, someone will crack the EV truck market eventually.
Ford failed due to massive production costs which they assumed would go down as the tech got better. They bet wrong, and ended up loosing tens of thousands per unit.
Battery tech needs to get better and cheaper for it to work properly.
Dang, I bet Elon fans did Not See this coming.
I can't help but laugh at the number of people on HN that kept trying to convince everyone this wasn't a terrible product.
The original promise wasnt terrible. The reality was!
I'm actually talking about the people defending the reality of what was released.
...and Im replying saying the original promise was good. Its a shame it wasnt kept otherwise what you are saying might not be true.
You can say that about almost every failed product ever. The AI pin that was just a wrapper to chatgpt could've been amazing if it did everything it promised.
Ugly car, shoddy build quality and a price commensurate with much better vehicles. What’s not to love?
I already got the first knock-off.
https://x02.me/i/esVNQF.jpeg
Just kidding.
Maybe they will upgrade the polygon count, anti-alias some of the improperly cut borders and implement proper Béziers curves...
Money better spent on your roadster reservations.
Ugly, made by a Nazi and bad at truck stuff. This is amongst the least surprising news of 2026.
Like the ideology it represents, it's presence is impossible to ignore, but in the worst way possible. Plus it's a shitty truck.
It can never shake the "Ugh, get a load of this guy" factor, and it's a wonder it stayed in production this long.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer company.
Yeah the Roadster is never getting mass produced …
Also i wonder whether in 5-7 years Model 3 and Y will be around
Isn’t the Model Y consistently leading the sales charts? I don’t think it’s going away anytime soon. The Model 3 is also selling reasonably well.
It is now, but what if Cybercab demands eclipses it?
Also Model Y/3 battery/charging is ancient at this point. It hasn’t had any meaningful improvements for 8 years now.
Look up a Model Y’s charging curve it’s horrible. There are cars out there with much more consistent ones, 400 kW charging, much more range etc etc
In what world would a Cybercab displace something like a Model 3 or Y? It's a two door coupe. Are you thinking automation? That's already coming to the 3/Y.
The Model Y charging curve is notably bad, I agree, in particular when equipped with the big Texas batteries Tesla wanted for the Cybertruck. But the counterpoint is that even peaking out at 250kW, I usually only spend 10-15 minutes charging my Model 3. The weak charging curve only exposes itself as an issue on marathon road trips where you are running it up from 10-80 repeatedly on a tight schedule.
And in any case, the better charging curve hasn't helped the competition put a meaningful dent in Model Y sales. The leading competitor is the Ford MME, and the charging curve on it is possibly weaker than the Model Y. It still outsells the Ioniq 5.
Car companies have long been on a cycle for their vehicles. It varies but generally we could say every seven years they're going to do a major redesign of a car. So I think it's safe to say the Model Y and Model 3 won't be sold in seven years. The question is, in seven years, will they have a different model, loosely based on the current Model Y and Model 3, that carry those same names? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe Tesla goes bankrupt and the cars aren't for sale. Maybe Tesla continues and the names exist.
They may try a bigger refresh than they did at the six year point, but I imagine they will keep the model names in any case.
But with such strong sales, the incentive is not to rock the boat. Incumbents refresh more often because they have a lot of competition.
Tesla does not have any meaningful competition for the Model Y. The closest competitor is the Ford MME, and just behind it the Ioniq 5. But Tesla still sells like 3-4x as many Model Ys as both of those combined.
The Model 3 has even less direct competition. But that's probably because the sedan market as a whole is not as strong as crossovers. The biggest competitor to the Model 3 is probably the Model Y. And to put some context on this -- even as a sedan, the Model 3 outsells the Subaru Outback. Anybody wondering whether Subaru will stop selling Outbacks?
I was hoping they'd release a much more refined v2 with better proportions, uniform panels, darker tinted steel, and better tolerances for panel gaps. I still feel the design while utterly in a different orbit against whatever else on the road, leaves a lot to be desired. Especially the rear 60% of the length. I cannot get over the weird tadpole tail.
... in order to free up production capacity for the Cybercab.
Hah, feels like when someone says they're going to stop dating the unemployed slob to focus on dating the alcoholic.
A taxi with only 2 doors, what an improvement!
The Zeekr with sliding doors that Waymo is using seems like a way better concept for a robotaxi. Still fits in a standard parking space but can carry a group at need without being terribly inefficient for a single person.
how come waymo can buy Chinese cars but i cant?
How many billions do your close friends and family have?
Seems like that might have something to do with it.
Without a steering wheel which guarantees it won't be road legal in most countries anytime soon.
A people mover that moves the minimum of people (2)
> A people mover that moves the minimum of people (2)
You meant maximum? Though minimum would be fun, too: taxi won’t start unless you agree to socialize and chat with a random stranger. As soon as silence is detected it pulls over and the ride ends.
Minimum to qualify as "people" rather than "person".
Ah yes. That makes sense now. But I guess the minimum of people for taxis would be one in general. A small taxi for one person is plausible. Zero won’t work as it would be a delivery vehicle only then.
90% of taxi rides are 1 person 95% 2 so its based on, you know, business intelligence rather than your hot take which is anti Elon rhetoric like most of this thread or any for that matter here (keep thinking this is reddit)
The cybertruck is baffling to me because it has the political connotations of a Hummer, but the beauty and gadget-obsession of a Pontiac Aztek.
IMO the Aztek is a perfect comp to the Cybertruck, actually. Both were crammed with features intended to revolutionize their market segments. Like the Cybertruck, the added value from those features was... dubious, at best.
Both are hideous. Both had a longer production run than you'd expect given their lofty goals and poor sales.
The Aztek has taken on a sort of ironic-cool status among some car nerds. It wasn't a bad car per se, just ugly and weird. Nowadays it's just a funny curio of the early 2000s.
It'll be interesting to see how the Cybertruck ages in the public eye. With time, maybe it'll be easier to separate it from its context as a Hummer for tech douchebags, and it'll just be a funny ugly car with some goofy features.
Realism has a chance again, now can Americans also wind down the cult-like following of figures like Musk, Trump, actors, athletes, and the likes? It's Unamerican. European royalists never were this crazy about their objects of affection.
> European royalists never were this crazy about their objects of affection.
Michael Fagan (a British citizen who intruded into Queen Elizabeth II's bedroom in Buckingham Palace in 1982) was reportedly somewhat enamoured of the Queen.
The hardcore carriage way lining flag wavers of the UK queue for hours and often have homes that could feature on Desperate Hoarders for the sheer number of coronation themed teapots and tea cosies that line every sill and proto ledge.
Even the UK's most notorious anarchists and anti-christs sing God Save the Queen.
It lasted longer than I expected
RIP Cybertruck
It brought joy and anger to many people.
Following the DeLorean example in more than just body surfaces.
nobody in the top level comments can just say "it sucked and I hated it"
And nothing of value was lost.
Tired: all terrain vehicles
Wired: special purpose vehicles
It did sort of identify/lean into something that I think many people don't really want to acknowledge, which is, yes the "truck" has become a status symbol rather than a work vehicle.
Had Musk leaned into it as the "luxury"/GT of trucks (like the H2), there probably would've been less pushback. Granted he's functionally incapable of not just lying about things being the best every and setting stupid impossible goals, but I do think there's outcomes where we see more things "akin" to the cybertruck, leaning into the Pavement Princess market.
They ran out of polygons
I can only imagine how many people told Musk that the Cybertruck was a horrible idea and he completely ignored them and probably fired a lot of them. Musk basically re-enacted the Simpsons episode where Homer's brother lets him design a car and it is so bad it bankrupts the company.
The Delorean of our times…
Where I live people make fun of this car. Not too unsimilar to "incel goggles".
The Cyberduck has always been DOA ... it just took Tesla/Elon 3 years to admit it.
Tesla is now two cars away from offering no cars? There's just model x and y which was built off of x. It does seem like they'd do fine as a meme-stock company though.
It was absolutely shocking that this thing launched at all.
It was so bad, yet, Musk managed to make buying one became an identity thing, selling far more than the product warranted.
I taught my now 4 year old that those are called dumpsters, so he very reliably says, "Hey Dad! A dumpster" whenever he sees one. The number of people he has loudly roasted while getting out of their dumpster is too high to count. Perhaps my proudest parenting achievement so far.
We went with "dumpster on wheels".
I just imagine what an incredible success Tesla would have had just making a "boring" Tesla branded competition to the F150. "Just" a model 3 with a standard pickup body.
Americans, for whatever reason, only buy SUVs and trucks. They've left the whole truck market untapped by creating a vehicle only a very small niche could/would want.
I don't understand what product marketing was up to, or if they just completely lacked the spine to stand up to Elon.
Surprise: a car that can only be legally sold and used on mainstream roads in the US makes poor sales, even in the US, after its design was widely ridiculed.
The Model 3 was a masterpiece of design, the Cybertruck is more like Cybercuck.
Thank goodness. What an eyesore. Of course, it does have the instrumental benefit of acting as a shibboleth.
As a small-business utility vehicle designed specifically to be wrapped in advertising, I thought it was brilliant. For other uses, eh.
Outside of certain kinds of construction contractors, I rarely if ever see pickup trucks used for this purpose.
This anecdote might indicate why: We recently had a bunch of work done on our house. The siding crew had a pickup truck, and every morning the very first thing they did was unload the entire contents of the truck into our back yard. The plumbers and electricians would just get the stuff they were actually using and then lock the van.
A ford Transit van fits that requirement much better - much more useful as a utility vehicle, much more space for advertising, much cheaper...
Reminder that the INFINITELY MORE PRACTICAL Model S and X lines died for this boondoggle. Still upset over that one.
"You never see a whole family in a cybertruck, its always just one man"
I struggle with why I should care. A low selling, controversial truck that is the brainchild of an eccentric billionaire is being discontinued. It's a triumph of Tesla marketing that anyone should care.
They have sold 70k Cybertrucks since 2023. Ford has sold more than 10 times that alone of F-series. Toyota sells that many RAV4s every two months.
For anyone that bought one and loves it - I'm not questioning your choice and I hope the vehicle will be well supported. Many popular vehicles that sell better have been discontinued like the entire companies of Geo, Saturn, and AMC. The Chevy Malibu sold twice as many cars per year pre-Covid than total Cybertrucks have been sold, and they were discontinued in 2024.
It's relatively neat that Tesla tried something new but they should consider focusing on operations and not losing further ground to BYD globally.
I wonder if we will see less aggressive and generally hostile car designs in the future, now that public sentiment towards the tech oligarchs seems to have shifted.
Renault is designing cute things again, so that's a good development. So is Citroen, apparently?
So that's a good development
I'd like a cheap basic pickup with an 8 foot bed please.
The overall positive responses here are kinda...concerning.
This sharp edged, fire hazard which was aimed at a certain group of people who seem to be dangerous themselves is not really something that should be cheered.
And yes, it looked different but there are different looking cars all over the world. They usually serve a purpose though like kei cars in Japan.
Does anyone want this ugly spy device anymore?
Darn, elon must be on downers since his attempt to buy elections for half a billion dollars failed utterly
Of course if there was an actual board of this public company with actual power the useless CEO would have been fire ten times over. But like in Meta and other Tech companies this will never be able to happen due to 10x voting Class B shares bullshit.
Why shareholders put up with that I will never know
All the clown show at Tesla had to do is clone the F-150. This was one of the easiest product failures to predict in recent memory. Musk can't help himself. Tesla continues to desperately need a Shotwell at the helm.
At present all Tesla has propping it up is bubble dust and one car model (one increasingly dated car model). Somehow after 14-15 years (Model S released in Summer 2012) these people still can't release a real SUV of any sort. The model Y is a grotesque joke of a fake SUV, a mutilated model 3 that doesn't really look like an SUV in any regard. The model Y is an SUV like the Cybertruck is a truck. They might as well have unlimited money to do it, and they can't do it. Same reason they couldn't release the roadster even after all this time. It's a fundamentally broken company because Musk won't get out of the way. Whatever Musk is good at it, it's not running a large scale automotive company.
Ok, I know I will take a lot of flack for this here with all the Enron fanboys but..
On one hand: "Ha ha!"
On the other, oh no, all these yahoos that bought this trash may make their money back if they hold on to this garbage long enough for the rarity to drive up the value as a collectors item.
Very happy to see this incel dumpster disappear. It's a great example of how aesthetics can be so horrible that they become a kind of moral contagion. The cybertruck's metallic exterior is the g4m3r equivalent of Trump's gold foil. Do love that Elon spent half a billion to get BTFO in Texas though. Good riddance. And lol at all the HN Elon fanboys. Guess I shouldn't expect more from this crowd. If there's one thing that MAGA slackjaws and SF tech nerds have in common it's zero taste.
I always feel sorry for people who own cybertrucks. Or Teslas in general.
They are not selling in USA. Chinese are buying the Chinese made ones..
https://evwire.com/etrucks/market-share
This seems to be about a totally different class of trucks.
> Zero-emission trucks over 12 t ·
(Cybertruck is still in the <3.5t class afaik)
> Zero-emission Class 7–8 trucks
These seem to be the classical cargo carrying trucks, not the pickup trucks.
You are right. I hadn't notice that.. Pick up truck category is different.
These aren't pickup trucks.
No mention of Tesla on that page?
Even if one assumes all tesla trucks.. share of electric trucks in USA is 0.3%.
Tesla cyber truck sales are going down from 38k a year to 20k a year. The Chinese net sales of electric trucks is massively more than Tesla's production if you look at the data that I posted.
https://www.centraloregondaily.com/news/consumer/tesla-to-pu...
Yusssss!
"Oh, no! Anyway..."