> Tesla has missed on pricing with new vehicle programs before,
> But when it comes to specs, Tesla has generally delivered on its promises.
That's an easy cop-out. If in good-faith, it just means that Tesla knows how to build the spec but has no idea what it means to scale it. In bad-faith, it's a calculated unfettered media-hype.
I would expect a company which reached the stage of presenting a product to have at least a prototype as well as some grasp on its BOM and how this product could be mass-produced. If the company also announces a price, I expect it to have done its homework before involving the public.
Letting this expectation continuously slide to allow yet-another media-spectacle of "Tesla announcing a sub-30.000 <whatever>" is quite a weakness in critical journalism (and thinking).
The fact that Tesla generally delivered on spec but not on price is exactly what I was commenting on. It's not a quality, it's still bad management.
Especially if you consider that they may have silently reduced spec in other areas to somehow meet their announced price, i.e. reducing material-quality, mounting components with adhesive, etc.
The fact that they didn't deliver on price and spec on the Cybertruck is actually proving the assumption that their product-announcements are not sufficiently grounded in reality.
I'll say this, I preordered both a Rivian and a Cybertruck when they announced and I purchased the Rivian because it was available roughly 2 years before the Cybertruck even started deliveries.
I've had some small teething problems with the truck but it has been the best vehicle I've ever driven. It works perfectly as a regular daily driver but I can load my SCUBA gear and tanks into the back, and go off-road, get a bunch of dives in, and be back to my truck that I've outfitted with fresh water for a shower, a fridge in the frunk for snacks and drinks, and a gear tunnel with dry and warm clothes.
Now that I can charge on the Supercharger network, the truck has just gotten even better since I no longer have to plan out my charging as carefully. The Rivian is built like a tank, it's handled everything I've thrown at it in stride, and the Rivian software folks have been making progress month after month.
I'm so glad that I bought a Rivian but really, I'm even more glad that I didn't buy a Cybertruck given the absolutely disastrous launch that its had. Just off the top of my head, I've heard of wheels falling off, trim falling off, tonneau cover nonfunctional and non removable, 20% less range than marketed, accelerator pedal falling off and sticking, PRNDL falling off, seats that creak and wiggle, poor offroading capabilities, red screen of death, FSD driving the truck into the wrong lanes, and I'm sure there are many other issues that I've not even heard about.
As a long time Tesla owner (I was an early adopter of the first gen Model S), I expected the overpromise and underdelivery of their products, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going back to Tesla if Rivian and other auto companies deliver better value and quality EVs.
> I'm pretty sure I'm never going back to Tesla if Rivian and other auto companies deliver better value and quality EVs
Which is a very sober and reasonable statement. If other companies deliver better value and quality, the only reason to buy a Tesla would be brand-loyalty (which is not a good reason to compromise on value/quality)
As mentioned, I had a few teething issues with the Rivian (mostly car noise and a leaky AC) so I was able to try out some other EVs while the truck was in the shop. I'll say that companies like Hyundai, Ford, and Mercedes have really come a long way in building EVs and all three of those are at least as good as Tesla if not better.
In my area, I can lease an entry-level Mercedes EV (I forget what they're called) something like 20-30% cheaper than I can get a Model 3. The entry-level Mercedes is decidedly worse than the Model 3, but you can't beat the pricing for what is still a very solid car (with more space and better sound quality to boot).
Seems like Rivian has a great product, but it's unclear whether the company is going to make it. If someone believed that the company will ultimately succeed and achieve scale, they should buy stock. It's very cheap.
It's really unfortunate that Rivian hasn't scaled. To me, their struggles really show how difficult of an industry it is and how small mistakes can really ruin an otherwise solid showing.
Gotta give kudos to Elon for dragging Tesla through the same hurdles and coming out on top with a profitable vehicle.
> As a long time Tesla owner (I was an early adopter of the first gen Model S), I expected the overpromise and underdelivery of their products, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going back to Tesla if Rivian and other auto companies deliver better value and quality EVs.
Indeed, I own several Teslas and cancelled my Cybertruck reservation after seeing how bad the product was up close (and absolutely not worth what they were asking for it). I ordered an F150 Lightning instead.
That was true before the software update that enabled the lockers. YouTube channels like TFL did a before/after video and it’s actually pretty good now.
It has lockers and huge ground clearance after all. Of course it is hindered by its huge length compared to a wrangler, but of course it’s not in the same class. It does better than an f150 for example.
Also the stock tires are crap for real off-roading, and hardly anyone knows you need to air down.
(Disclaimer: never owned a Tesla, but I off road 4x4s around the world for a living)
I guess I made that statement partially looking directly at the Cybertruck's actual performance and partially looking at the Cybertruck relative to other offroading vehicles.
The reality of the situation for the Cybertruck is that it's a pretty heavy vehicle (with as you mention) not great stock tires -- but everyone knows that. The absolute biggest issue with it though is that the tie rods for all 4 wheels don't seem to be adequate -- especially if you're coming down pretty hard on a single corner. There are countless videos out there where you see Cybertrucks with floppy wheels -- especially out offroading.
Secondly, the Cybertruck has sub-par departure angles where the hitch just gets dragged along the ground. Combined with the realization that the hitch is only rated for 160lbs of vertical load (and it's structurally attached to the frame with aluminum -- which cracks, not bends). I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable doing much beyond just bumpy roads with the truck.
Finally, the breakover angle is just not good at all either. Ground clearance doesn't mean much when the wheelbase is so long. The Rivian sits at about 15 inches of clearance with stock wheels and the Cybertruck comes in about 5% shorter at 14.4 inches. Not only that, but the Cybertruck also has a 5% longer wheelbase than the Rivian and its suspension does not articulate as much -- especially at full lift.
Real world, this means that the Rivian's departure angle in the truck is 30 degrees (plus a little more). The Cybertruck sits at 24.7 degrees in its drivable mode (it goes up to ~27 degrees if you have it in the crawl "extract" mode). There's also a 3.5ish difference in breakover angle as well.
Relative to other "standard" offroading 4x4s like the Rubicon/Wrangler or Land Cruisers, the Rivian is at best average and the Cybertruck is decidedly worse. Couple that with the R1T being able to independently power each wheel, the Cybertruck is IMO more recreational than proper off-road.
I'm not here to gatekeep so I will point out the obvious and say that the Cybertruck is for sure, a better offroading vehicle compared to most recreational/luxury vehicles out there. I'm just not sure that I'd qualify it as anything better than "okay?".
> Relative to other "standard" offroading 4x4s like the Rubicon/Wrangler or Land Cruisers, the Rivian is at best average and the Cybertruck is decidedly worse
But it's pointless to compare the Cybertruck to a Wrangler or Land Cruiser. It can tow more than 3x as much, payload is more than double, it can seat five people and still have a hug amount of cargo and of course it's way, way, way longer (and wider).
It only makes sense to compare it to an F-150, Ram 1500, Rivian, etc.
In which case it is really not bad off road at all.
I find your comment quite strange to be honest, and it's not comment. There are so many "the-final-straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back-I-cancelled-my-order" comments out there, of folks claiming loudly that they're getting an F150 instead.
The F150 and the Cybertruck is so far apart in terms of the type of vehicle they are that I can't really understand how they are used in the same conversation. It makes 0 sense to me to say "I'm going with the F150 instead", because it's not the same class of vehicles.
I'm keen to understand what you were hoping to get out the Cybertruck, that you are now instead going to get from a hybrid F150, and why you did not consider the F150 in the first place.
I find this elitist attitude towards trucks (well, anything to be honest) quite weird.
1. By definition, you need a truck if you’re decided on getting one.
2. There are no objective criteria you need to pass in order to get one, other than having the finances.
3. You’re projecting your own world view on others.
In this case it makes sense because if you needed the actual truck capabilities they'd buy a different truck because the Cybertruck wouldn't fit the criteria of others from a category that would fit. The only reason people can change between both models is they didn't need truck features in the first place and it was more of an aesthetic choice, which is fine but that's what I meant by "not needing it".
What truck things can an F150 Lightning do that a Cybertruck can't? I can't think of anything other than goose-neck towing, but that's generally an f250+ thing.
Tow without fear of shattering the frame (OK, without the snark, support more than 160 lbs downward force on the hitch). A full sized bed. Better visibility. Go offroad. Go through a carwash.
And in a purely cosmetic take: even panel gaps and a finish that doesn't require hand-cleaning after it rains.
The confusion here is that most manufacturers don't differentiate between Tongue Load (which is 1100), and vertical hitch load limits. From an alert panel in the manual's "Carrying Accessories" section:
"The hitch assembly is designed to support vertical loads up to 160 lb (72 kg). Exceeding this maximum weight can cause damage."
The CT bed is 6' by 4', the F150 has options at 5'5" (short bed), 6'5" (standard bed), and 8' (long bed). It's also universally wider than the CT's bed (albeit by only 2"), and the depth is greater at the tailgate, and consistent throughout.
As for blind spots, trucks suck, period. But the complete loss of the back window when the tonneau cover is closed is a major visibility issue. Yes, even with the rear view camera (which all vehicles have now). The A pillar in the front is also a larger issue for the CT vs the F150.
I have yet to see a single instance of a CT doing offroading that a Subaru Legacy couldn't do - I've seen more ford pickups towing CTs out of trouble to be honest. The weight and lack of articulation put the Cybertruck at an immediate disadvantage that no amount of power control can overcome.
Based on the evidence, it should take more than just stepping on it - it seems to break under a big dynamic load. The cast aluminum appears to be more brittle than a steel frame.
But who knows, really. I'd say "not Tesla", but they did add that warning to the owner's manual...
If you can do everything you use your truck for with a non-truck you don't need a truck, you want a truck. Which is fine, it's pretty common in the US to use a truck as nothing more than an expensive commuter vehicle.
I do find it weird how many people feel the need to justify a truck purchase as a necessity when it's clearly a luxury purchase, no different from buying a Lexus or Mercedes sedan because you want to.
I find this lack of arguing in good faith quite weird.
A soccer mom doesn't need a truck in the same way a roofer needs a truck.
There are very obective criterias that you can use to determine if you need a city car, a sedan, a truck, a van, or a supersport car. It really isn't rocket science
Normal people buy so many things they do not need so often that I find this comment ridiculous. Yep, people buy cars they dont need, furniture they dont need and random crap they dont need.
> The F150 and the Cybertruck is so far apart in terms of the type of vehicle they are that I can't really understand how they are used in the same conversation. It makes 0 sense to me to say "I'm going with the F150 instead", because it's not the same class of vehicles.
Are they not both trucks? What am I missing in that they are not the same class of vehicle?
A truck is arguably a work machine for many people. It's a tool designed to be used as such. I dont think the Cybertruck is a tool in that regard, because it clearly fails at the most basic "truck things", if the general internet is to be believed.
Now, if aesthetic is the primary factor here, the CB probably trumps the F150, by a huge margin, and one would not even consider something like the F150 as a suitable replacement or equivalent.
The GP in my thread decided to replace their designer high heels fashion statement for some boring hiking boots, because the heels did not fare well when walking long distances.
Also the Cybertruck is vastly outselling the electric f150, and there is almost no wait now, unlike the f150 which ford don’t seem to be able to scale production
I'm explicitly not buying an EV yet because there are no massive savings on gas where I am for the amount I drive. My current car cost like $12k used, and at the time a comparable electric used car would have been like $23k (and would have had like a 80-100 mile range, which I would have been fine with). But we spend like an average of $400/yr on gas and $75/yr on oil changes and extra maintenance above what an EV needs, so we'd be looking at 10++ years of difference to break. Even assuming free electricity and no higher licensing fees (which combined would be more like $200/yr). So actually more like 20++ years to break even there (which is basically not happening).
If I lived in an area where gas cost $20/gallon instead of $4/gallon, then it would change the math a little - it would be a net of more like $1300/yr, and I might actually spend less on an EV in the long run (7 years to break even, assuming 0 opportunity cost on the $9k).
If I spent $20/gallon on gas and also drove 12k miles / yr instead of 3k miles / yr, then it becomes a much better proposition.
I don't think EVs make sense yet for saving money unless you drive a lot; e.g. are doing Uber, and even then a Prius might make more sense. I bought mine for fun driving, they just simply drive better than ICEs, but it wasn't a financially beneficial decision.
The massive savings aren't always massive. If you use fast chargers frequently, it's going to cost you. In contrast if you use a slow charger regularly at home, then you'll save money. But that's not really an option for road trips.
That is certainly what the media narrative is saying, though they're currently building and selling more of them than every other EV pickup in existence... so if that counts as "collapsed demand", I'm not sure what that means for the other brands.
The range downgrade was a significant disappointment. If you figure towing a trailer cuts the range by about half, the Cybertruck at 500/250 miles would be not great but reasonable for pulling a camper on a trip, but at 300/150 miles, it’s just not practical. The off-road performance also is sub-par, so it’s not good at two of the main things people buy a truck for. As a fashion statement I guess it’s still pretty good if you like the styling.
Overpromise and underdeliver. But this strategy still has its merit because it often is important in a competetive market just to be "first" somehow and capture a certain notion in people's mind. Just like Tesla in general now personifies electric cars because it was first (which it wasn't, but it certainly kicked off the mainstream EV market in the West). With the Cybertruck reveal, the point was to present something radical. The design, the numbers! Whether Tesla can actually deliver that by the time the truck comes to the market is almost secondary. Sure, some people are going to be pissed off, but in other people's minds, forever there will be this memory engrained of this amazingly radical thing this amazingly different company, Tesla, did back in 2019.
Btw, can you believe it's been 5 years since the Cybertruck was first unvealed?
Getting first doesn't mean much if you don't keep up with innovation. Just look at Xerox, Kodak, Nokia, Blackberry... Plenty of companies have had good products but were then outpaced by people who took what they did and made it better, cheaper, whatever.
Most of the example you cite were not outpaced by the competition in the same market - they missed the boat when their tech space got disrupted by a completely new and different alternative to their product.
Cybertruck was supposed to be first by taking a radically different approach to building a truck that would let them deliver a lighter (structural exoskeleton) and cheaper (no paint) truck to offset the expensive batteries.
In the time it took them to do that, cheaper batteries in a standard truck became feasible.
A friend has one and two things: the frunk is awesome, and two BlueCruise is great. The frunk means there's a huge storage area for all the tools that used to be in the bed tool boxes or in the cab that no longer need to be there, freeing up a bunch of space of passengers and materials.
BlueCruise doesn't cover all freeways, but is such a game changer for commuting. It's not full self driving or Waymo but it's solid where it needs to be for a freeway heavy commute. Also it can now charge on the Tesla Supercharger network so charging is fine, esp on top of a home charger.
One problem I'll mention is it's got an electrically limited top speed, so while it accelerates great, it tops out low.
> Tesla has missed on pricing with new vehicle programs before, and inflation has been exceptionally high in the few years between the original unveiling and pricing of the Cybertruck in 2019 and its start of production last year.
> But when it comes to specs, Tesla has generally delivered on its promises. Not with the Cybertruck.
Agree. The miss on range with the Cybertruck is too big to ignore. I can understand the price increases due to inflation or whatever. But the enticing thing was getting 500+ miles on the tri motor version, which would have made it unlike anything else - a magical mix of power, utility, and range to put it to use (or just help with range anxiety). The drop from “500+” to 320 is HUGE.
I don’t know if this range extender really makes sense either. Will people really pay 16K more to get 120 miles more while losing 1/3rd of their bed space? To me that seems like a bad deal. Why not just get a Model X at that point?
As an alternative I would prefer a PHEV truck that provides 50 miles of range so most trips are fully electric, but with a gas engine available for longer trips. The 2025 Ram 1500 Ramcharger will provide that, with an engine that works as a generator (to power electric motors).
The drop from 500 to 320 also meant that towing a decent load dropped from like 180 to 80. It became useless for anything but around town towing.
> The 2025 Ram 1500 Ramcharger will provide that, with an engine that works as a generator (to power electric motors).
I’ve heard so little about this since the announcement I’m really worried it’s going to be killed or pushed out 4 years with the rest of the industry walking back their EV promises.
I wonder if you could get a useful system without using up the entire bed. In order to get "infinite" range while towing, you'd probably want at least a 100kW ICE in the back. A 100kW diesel generator is a beefy boy, those usually come on a two axle trailer. But maybe you could build something more compact with a performance motorcycle engine...
Also, can the cybertruck charge its main battery from the range extender? Or can it drive while the charging port is supplied with current? The entire idea kind of dies if the ICE can't charge the main battery, you really want that to buffer demand.
Agreed with regard to the project dying if it can't charge the main battery.
Supposing that's not a problem, if the GP is right about the Ramcharger using an ICE to run the electric motors, then in principle we pretty much already know it's possible from a power density perspective.
I suppose one could start running the generator at the beginning of the trip instead of waiting for the main battery to drain significantly. Perhaps you couldn't get "infinite" range, but you could stretch your main battery's range out far enough that for all practical purposes you wouldn't care—you could either get to a charger or find some diesel and wait an hour or two after a 10+ hour trip for the generator to recharge the main battery.
> the Ramcharger using an ICE to run the electric motors, then in principle we pretty much already know it's possible from a power density perspective
They have the advantage building the powerplant (and all its periphery) into the chassis. That saves a lot of material on engine mounts and covers, you can skip the cabin heater heat pump, ect.
A big difference is also if you design it for towing or not. You can probably get functionally infinite highway range with a 20kW ICE if you don't want to tow. And those you can build real tiny. You can probably do with a 125cc with the cutest little turbo the world has every seen.
Are you sure? Google tells me a Cybertruck uses around 400 Wh of energy per mile. 20 miles worth of charging then would be 8000 Wh. To generate that much in an hour would take an 8000 W generator.
The first 8000 W generator I found [1] is 200 lbs.
Here's a 24000 W generator [2] that weighs 455 lbs. The weight of its fuel (propane) would be a little under 17 lbs for each hour's worth.
Photos of the battery show it is half only full of cells, and a lead engineer at Tesla commented as much.
I think it likely there will be a much higher range version later, but they’re cell constrained for now so they’re only putting one layer of cells into the pack
The range extender is a bit of an odd product considering both the range added (limited) and the form factor (taking up a lot of space in the back).
While the range drop is disappointing, it's still plenty of range. More than enough for normal drivers that aren't anxiety ridden about range. Most people only drive about 12000 miles per year. And rarely over 300 in a single day. And when you do go on a long trip: relax, have a break (you'll need it) and charge up the car and yourself. It's not healthy to be on the road non stop regularly. You can charge the car up plenty over a nice lunch break. If you need a second stop after nine hours of driving or so, you need a break as well. And no, you aren't super human.
The product itself seems popular. Tesla now is starting to dominate the truck market. And they only barely started ramping up production. It's going to be interesting to see how they'll do when they reach their production volume targets. It's of course a divisive product with its styling and features. But it's arguably performing well in sales. Despite the currently high price.
That statement is spoken by people who only look at the us second quarter ev pickup truck sales and see the cyber truck at even with all others combined. Forgetting that is a tiny niche market, the time window is favourable for the cybertruck and forget the many of petrol versions.
I hope that with that small caveat, you agree that the Cybertruck completely and utterly dominates the EV truck market now. Which is a notion that seems to upset a lot of people here.
As for my other "false" claims? Which are you referring to? You used the plural here. And since we're being pedantic ...
Cybertruck steer-by-wire was really fun and interesting to try, some have FSD for test drives too, would really recommend giving it a try before hating so much:
https://www.tesla.com/drive
> Tesla has missed on pricing with new vehicle programs before,
> But when it comes to specs, Tesla has generally delivered on its promises.
That's an easy cop-out. If in good-faith, it just means that Tesla knows how to build the spec but has no idea what it means to scale it. In bad-faith, it's a calculated unfettered media-hype.
I would expect a company which reached the stage of presenting a product to have at least a prototype as well as some grasp on its BOM and how this product could be mass-produced. If the company also announces a price, I expect it to have done its homework before involving the public.
Letting this expectation continuously slide to allow yet-another media-spectacle of "Tesla announcing a sub-30.000 <whatever>" is quite a weakness in critical journalism (and thinking).
This is mentioned right after, which changes the meaning of the words quoted by you.
> Not with the Cybertruck.
It doesn't change the meaning.
The fact that Tesla generally delivered on spec but not on price is exactly what I was commenting on. It's not a quality, it's still bad management.
Especially if you consider that they may have silently reduced spec in other areas to somehow meet their announced price, i.e. reducing material-quality, mounting components with adhesive, etc.
The fact that they didn't deliver on price and spec on the Cybertruck is actually proving the assumption that their product-announcements are not sufficiently grounded in reality.
I'll say this, I preordered both a Rivian and a Cybertruck when they announced and I purchased the Rivian because it was available roughly 2 years before the Cybertruck even started deliveries.
I've had some small teething problems with the truck but it has been the best vehicle I've ever driven. It works perfectly as a regular daily driver but I can load my SCUBA gear and tanks into the back, and go off-road, get a bunch of dives in, and be back to my truck that I've outfitted with fresh water for a shower, a fridge in the frunk for snacks and drinks, and a gear tunnel with dry and warm clothes.
Now that I can charge on the Supercharger network, the truck has just gotten even better since I no longer have to plan out my charging as carefully. The Rivian is built like a tank, it's handled everything I've thrown at it in stride, and the Rivian software folks have been making progress month after month.
I'm so glad that I bought a Rivian but really, I'm even more glad that I didn't buy a Cybertruck given the absolutely disastrous launch that its had. Just off the top of my head, I've heard of wheels falling off, trim falling off, tonneau cover nonfunctional and non removable, 20% less range than marketed, accelerator pedal falling off and sticking, PRNDL falling off, seats that creak and wiggle, poor offroading capabilities, red screen of death, FSD driving the truck into the wrong lanes, and I'm sure there are many other issues that I've not even heard about.
As a long time Tesla owner (I was an early adopter of the first gen Model S), I expected the overpromise and underdelivery of their products, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going back to Tesla if Rivian and other auto companies deliver better value and quality EVs.
> I'm pretty sure I'm never going back to Tesla if Rivian and other auto companies deliver better value and quality EVs
Which is a very sober and reasonable statement. If other companies deliver better value and quality, the only reason to buy a Tesla would be brand-loyalty (which is not a good reason to compromise on value/quality)
As mentioned, I had a few teething issues with the Rivian (mostly car noise and a leaky AC) so I was able to try out some other EVs while the truck was in the shop. I'll say that companies like Hyundai, Ford, and Mercedes have really come a long way in building EVs and all three of those are at least as good as Tesla if not better.
In my area, I can lease an entry-level Mercedes EV (I forget what they're called) something like 20-30% cheaper than I can get a Model 3. The entry-level Mercedes is decidedly worse than the Model 3, but you can't beat the pricing for what is still a very solid car (with more space and better sound quality to boot).
Seems like Rivian has a great product, but it's unclear whether the company is going to make it. If someone believed that the company will ultimately succeed and achieve scale, they should buy stock. It's very cheap.
It's really unfortunate that Rivian hasn't scaled. To me, their struggles really show how difficult of an industry it is and how small mistakes can really ruin an otherwise solid showing.
Gotta give kudos to Elon for dragging Tesla through the same hurdles and coming out on top with a profitable vehicle.
> I'm sure there are many other issues that I've not even heard about.
The windshield wiper committing suicide is a common one.
Ah yes, I forgot about that. The windshield spontaneously cracking was also something I forgot to mention.
Oof - doesn't bode well for Tesla. And that isn't even considering the "Tony Stark to Andrew Tate" brand transformation of the spokesman...
> As a long time Tesla owner (I was an early adopter of the first gen Model S), I expected the overpromise and underdelivery of their products, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going back to Tesla if Rivian and other auto companies deliver better value and quality EVs.
Indeed, I own several Teslas and cancelled my Cybertruck reservation after seeing how bad the product was up close (and absolutely not worth what they were asking for it). I ordered an F150 Lightning instead.
> poor offroading capabilities
That was true before the software update that enabled the lockers. YouTube channels like TFL did a before/after video and it’s actually pretty good now.
It has lockers and huge ground clearance after all. Of course it is hindered by its huge length compared to a wrangler, but of course it’s not in the same class. It does better than an f150 for example.
Also the stock tires are crap for real off-roading, and hardly anyone knows you need to air down.
(Disclaimer: never owned a Tesla, but I off road 4x4s around the world for a living)
I guess I made that statement partially looking directly at the Cybertruck's actual performance and partially looking at the Cybertruck relative to other offroading vehicles.
The reality of the situation for the Cybertruck is that it's a pretty heavy vehicle (with as you mention) not great stock tires -- but everyone knows that. The absolute biggest issue with it though is that the tie rods for all 4 wheels don't seem to be adequate -- especially if you're coming down pretty hard on a single corner. There are countless videos out there where you see Cybertrucks with floppy wheels -- especially out offroading.
Secondly, the Cybertruck has sub-par departure angles where the hitch just gets dragged along the ground. Combined with the realization that the hitch is only rated for 160lbs of vertical load (and it's structurally attached to the frame with aluminum -- which cracks, not bends). I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable doing much beyond just bumpy roads with the truck.
Finally, the breakover angle is just not good at all either. Ground clearance doesn't mean much when the wheelbase is so long. The Rivian sits at about 15 inches of clearance with stock wheels and the Cybertruck comes in about 5% shorter at 14.4 inches. Not only that, but the Cybertruck also has a 5% longer wheelbase than the Rivian and its suspension does not articulate as much -- especially at full lift.
Real world, this means that the Rivian's departure angle in the truck is 30 degrees (plus a little more). The Cybertruck sits at 24.7 degrees in its drivable mode (it goes up to ~27 degrees if you have it in the crawl "extract" mode). There's also a 3.5ish difference in breakover angle as well.
Relative to other "standard" offroading 4x4s like the Rubicon/Wrangler or Land Cruisers, the Rivian is at best average and the Cybertruck is decidedly worse. Couple that with the R1T being able to independently power each wheel, the Cybertruck is IMO more recreational than proper off-road.
I'm not here to gatekeep so I will point out the obvious and say that the Cybertruck is for sure, a better offroading vehicle compared to most recreational/luxury vehicles out there. I'm just not sure that I'd qualify it as anything better than "okay?".
Everything you said is absolutely true.
> Relative to other "standard" offroading 4x4s like the Rubicon/Wrangler or Land Cruisers, the Rivian is at best average and the Cybertruck is decidedly worse
But it's pointless to compare the Cybertruck to a Wrangler or Land Cruiser. It can tow more than 3x as much, payload is more than double, it can seat five people and still have a hug amount of cargo and of course it's way, way, way longer (and wider).
It only makes sense to compare it to an F-150, Ram 1500, Rivian, etc.
In which case it is really not bad off road at all.
The range downgrade from initial presentation was the sole reason why I cancelled preorder and ended up with hybrid f150 instead.
I find your comment quite strange to be honest, and it's not comment. There are so many "the-final-straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back-I-cancelled-my-order" comments out there, of folks claiming loudly that they're getting an F150 instead.
The F150 and the Cybertruck is so far apart in terms of the type of vehicle they are that I can't really understand how they are used in the same conversation. It makes 0 sense to me to say "I'm going with the F150 instead", because it's not the same class of vehicles.
I'm keen to understand what you were hoping to get out the Cybertruck, that you are now instead going to get from a hybrid F150, and why you did not consider the F150 in the first place.
They fit perfectly together in the category "cool truck if you don't need a truck" so it's very easy to see why.
I find this elitist attitude towards trucks (well, anything to be honest) quite weird. 1. By definition, you need a truck if you’re decided on getting one. 2. There are no objective criteria you need to pass in order to get one, other than having the finances. 3. You’re projecting your own world view on others.
In this case it makes sense because if you needed the actual truck capabilities they'd buy a different truck because the Cybertruck wouldn't fit the criteria of others from a category that would fit. The only reason people can change between both models is they didn't need truck features in the first place and it was more of an aesthetic choice, which is fine but that's what I meant by "not needing it".
What truck things can an F150 Lightning do that a Cybertruck can't? I can't think of anything other than goose-neck towing, but that's generally an f250+ thing.
Tow without fear of shattering the frame (OK, without the snark, support more than 160 lbs downward force on the hitch). A full sized bed. Better visibility. Go offroad. Go through a carwash.
And in a purely cosmetic take: even panel gaps and a finish that doesn't require hand-cleaning after it rains.
EDIT: Fixed 150 to 160 lbs to match manual.
> support more than 150 lbs downward force on the hitch
manual says 1100 pounds
> A full sized bed.
Cybertruck's is bigger than the Lightning's
> Better visibility.
No clear win for either truck. Both have bad blind spots.
> Go offroad.
Clear win for Cybertruck after the locking diff software update.
The confusion here is that most manufacturers don't differentiate between Tongue Load (which is 1100), and vertical hitch load limits. From an alert panel in the manual's "Carrying Accessories" section:
"The hitch assembly is designed to support vertical loads up to 160 lb (72 kg). Exceeding this maximum weight can cause damage."
The CT bed is 6' by 4', the F150 has options at 5'5" (short bed), 6'5" (standard bed), and 8' (long bed). It's also universally wider than the CT's bed (albeit by only 2"), and the depth is greater at the tailgate, and consistent throughout.
As for blind spots, trucks suck, period. But the complete loss of the back window when the tonneau cover is closed is a major visibility issue. Yes, even with the rear view camera (which all vehicles have now). The A pillar in the front is also a larger issue for the CT vs the F150.
I have yet to see a single instance of a CT doing offroading that a Subaru Legacy couldn't do - I've seen more ford pickups towing CTs out of trouble to be honest. The weight and lack of articulation put the Cybertruck at an immediate disadvantage that no amount of power control can overcome.
Wait a second...I weigh more than 160 lb. Does that mean that if I stepped on the hitch of one while trying to get up into the bed it might break?
Based on the evidence, it should take more than just stepping on it - it seems to break under a big dynamic load. The cast aluminum appears to be more brittle than a steel frame.
But who knows, really. I'd say "not Tesla", but they did add that warning to the owner's manual...
Pointing out that some people don't need an 8,000 pound grocery getter isn't elitist, it's just being real.
If you can do everything you use your truck for with a non-truck you don't need a truck, you want a truck. Which is fine, it's pretty common in the US to use a truck as nothing more than an expensive commuter vehicle.
I do find it weird how many people feel the need to justify a truck purchase as a necessity when it's clearly a luxury purchase, no different from buying a Lexus or Mercedes sedan because you want to.
I find this lack of arguing in good faith quite weird.
A soccer mom doesn't need a truck in the same way a roofer needs a truck.
There are very obective criterias that you can use to determine if you need a city car, a sedan, a truck, a van, or a supersport car. It really isn't rocket science
Normal people buy so many things they do not need so often that I find this comment ridiculous. Yep, people buy cars they dont need, furniture they dont need and random crap they dont need.
It isn’t elitist, it’s an answer to the specific question the scenario where someone could substitute a f150 for a cyber truck.
> The F150 and the Cybertruck is so far apart in terms of the type of vehicle they are that I can't really understand how they are used in the same conversation. It makes 0 sense to me to say "I'm going with the F150 instead", because it's not the same class of vehicles.
Are they not both trucks? What am I missing in that they are not the same class of vehicle?
A truck is arguably a work machine for many people. It's a tool designed to be used as such. I dont think the Cybertruck is a tool in that regard, because it clearly fails at the most basic "truck things", if the general internet is to be believed.
Now, if aesthetic is the primary factor here, the CB probably trumps the F150, by a huge margin, and one would not even consider something like the F150 as a suitable replacement or equivalent.
The GP in my thread decided to replace their designer high heels fashion statement for some boring hiking boots, because the heels did not fare well when walking long distances.
Towing and cargo capacity
Also the Cybertruck is vastly outselling the electric f150, and there is almost no wait now, unlike the f150 which ford don’t seem to be able to scale production
That might be, but the hybrid F150 is outselling the electric one.
Honestly I didn’t even know there was a hybrid f150.
It doesn’t make much sense to compare a hybrid with a “no gas” range of almost nothing [1] and a 1.5kwh battery to a fully electric vehicle
[1] https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/powerboosts-poll-how...
I would guess most customers do not care much about gas vs electric and just care that their use cases are served.
Surely people are buying EVs because of the massive savings on gas....
I'm explicitly not buying an EV yet because there are no massive savings on gas where I am for the amount I drive. My current car cost like $12k used, and at the time a comparable electric used car would have been like $23k (and would have had like a 80-100 mile range, which I would have been fine with). But we spend like an average of $400/yr on gas and $75/yr on oil changes and extra maintenance above what an EV needs, so we'd be looking at 10++ years of difference to break. Even assuming free electricity and no higher licensing fees (which combined would be more like $200/yr). So actually more like 20++ years to break even there (which is basically not happening).
If I lived in an area where gas cost $20/gallon instead of $4/gallon, then it would change the math a little - it would be a net of more like $1300/yr, and I might actually spend less on an EV in the long run (7 years to break even, assuming 0 opportunity cost on the $9k).
If I spent $20/gallon on gas and also drove 12k miles / yr instead of 3k miles / yr, then it becomes a much better proposition.
I don't think EVs make sense yet for saving money unless you drive a lot; e.g. are doing Uber, and even then a Prius might make more sense. I bought mine for fun driving, they just simply drive better than ICEs, but it wasn't a financially beneficial decision.
The massive savings aren't always massive. If you use fast chargers frequently, it's going to cost you. In contrast if you use a slow charger regularly at home, then you'll save money. But that's not really an option for road trips.
Isn't the short waitlist for the cybertruck because demand for it basically collapsed?
That is certainly what the media narrative is saying, though they're currently building and selling more of them than every other EV pickup in existence... so if that counts as "collapsed demand", I'm not sure what that means for the other brands.
The range downgrade was a significant disappointment. If you figure towing a trailer cuts the range by about half, the Cybertruck at 500/250 miles would be not great but reasonable for pulling a camper on a trip, but at 300/150 miles, it’s just not practical. The off-road performance also is sub-par, so it’s not good at two of the main things people buy a truck for. As a fashion statement I guess it’s still pretty good if you like the styling.
Is anyone else experiencing repeated crashes when viewing this article via iOS Safari?
Would happen with any browser, just stop driving for a minute if you have to read
I used to think no production vehicle could ever be uglier than a PT Cruiser.
Fiat Multipla says hi.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Multipla
Sadly, the second version of this was far more boring, just looking like a fat hatchback.
I kind of liked the first-gen.
It looks like a little car riding inside a bigger car.
Cars which didnt upgrade from shinbone fracture profiles to hip fracture profiles have gone extinct and thats bad.
The PT cruiser looks like a potato, and the Cybertruck looks like a potato slicer. It's a match made in heaven.
You're forgetting the Pontiac Aztek.
But yeah, this thing ranks right up there with the worst.
I wonder if it's the same people who buy all three. The people who dress up for Halloween 364 days a year.
Overpromise and underdeliver. But this strategy still has its merit because it often is important in a competetive market just to be "first" somehow and capture a certain notion in people's mind. Just like Tesla in general now personifies electric cars because it was first (which it wasn't, but it certainly kicked off the mainstream EV market in the West). With the Cybertruck reveal, the point was to present something radical. The design, the numbers! Whether Tesla can actually deliver that by the time the truck comes to the market is almost secondary. Sure, some people are going to be pissed off, but in other people's minds, forever there will be this memory engrained of this amazingly radical thing this amazingly different company, Tesla, did back in 2019.
Btw, can you believe it's been 5 years since the Cybertruck was first unvealed?
Getting first doesn't mean much if you don't keep up with innovation. Just look at Xerox, Kodak, Nokia, Blackberry... Plenty of companies have had good products but were then outpaced by people who took what they did and made it better, cheaper, whatever.
Most of the example you cite were not outpaced by the competition in the same market - they missed the boat when their tech space got disrupted by a completely new and different alternative to their product.
Cybertruck was supposed to be first by taking a radically different approach to building a truck that would let them deliver a lighter (structural exoskeleton) and cheaper (no paint) truck to offset the expensive batteries.
In the time it took them to do that, cheaper batteries in a standard truck became feasible.
True.
Btw, does anyone have hands-on experience with such a truck like, say, an F150 lightning?
A friend has one and two things: the frunk is awesome, and two BlueCruise is great. The frunk means there's a huge storage area for all the tools that used to be in the bed tool boxes or in the cab that no longer need to be there, freeing up a bunch of space of passengers and materials.
BlueCruise doesn't cover all freeways, but is such a game changer for commuting. It's not full self driving or Waymo but it's solid where it needs to be for a freeway heavy commute. Also it can now charge on the Tesla Supercharger network so charging is fine, esp on top of a home charger.
One problem I'll mention is it's got an electrically limited top speed, so while it accelerates great, it tops out low.
tesla customer have again been musked.
> Tesla has missed on pricing with new vehicle programs before, and inflation has been exceptionally high in the few years between the original unveiling and pricing of the Cybertruck in 2019 and its start of production last year.
> But when it comes to specs, Tesla has generally delivered on its promises. Not with the Cybertruck.
Agree. The miss on range with the Cybertruck is too big to ignore. I can understand the price increases due to inflation or whatever. But the enticing thing was getting 500+ miles on the tri motor version, which would have made it unlike anything else - a magical mix of power, utility, and range to put it to use (or just help with range anxiety). The drop from “500+” to 320 is HUGE.
I don’t know if this range extender really makes sense either. Will people really pay 16K more to get 120 miles more while losing 1/3rd of their bed space? To me that seems like a bad deal. Why not just get a Model X at that point?
As an alternative I would prefer a PHEV truck that provides 50 miles of range so most trips are fully electric, but with a gas engine available for longer trips. The 2025 Ram 1500 Ramcharger will provide that, with an engine that works as a generator (to power electric motors).
The drop from 500 to 320 also meant that towing a decent load dropped from like 180 to 80. It became useless for anything but around town towing.
> The 2025 Ram 1500 Ramcharger will provide that, with an engine that works as a generator (to power electric motors).
I’ve heard so little about this since the announcement I’m really worried it’s going to be killed or pushed out 4 years with the rest of the industry walking back their EV promises.
Is anyone actually using Cybertrucks for towing heavy loads? I'm under the impression it's mostly a recreational vehicle.
There are definitely pictures of people who try, one bloke put a towing crane thing in the bed of theirs: https://i.redd.it/32fsd1elmfvd1.jpeg
I think the stickers are the primary function, the crane is only to increase the liklyhood of someone photographing/sharing.
Really the primary practical use case for the Cybertruck right now is generating YouTube and TikTok content.
Not really because of the range issue I mentioned. I wanted it to tow my 9,000lb trailer.
It'd be funny to hack the range extender's protocol so you could install a diesel electric generator instead of a battery pack.
Interesting project.
I wonder if you could get a useful system without using up the entire bed. In order to get "infinite" range while towing, you'd probably want at least a 100kW ICE in the back. A 100kW diesel generator is a beefy boy, those usually come on a two axle trailer. But maybe you could build something more compact with a performance motorcycle engine...
Also, can the cybertruck charge its main battery from the range extender? Or can it drive while the charging port is supplied with current? The entire idea kind of dies if the ICE can't charge the main battery, you really want that to buffer demand.
Agreed with regard to the project dying if it can't charge the main battery.
Supposing that's not a problem, if the GP is right about the Ramcharger using an ICE to run the electric motors, then in principle we pretty much already know it's possible from a power density perspective.
I suppose one could start running the generator at the beginning of the trip instead of waiting for the main battery to drain significantly. Perhaps you couldn't get "infinite" range, but you could stretch your main battery's range out far enough that for all practical purposes you wouldn't care—you could either get to a charger or find some diesel and wait an hour or two after a 10+ hour trip for the generator to recharge the main battery.
> the Ramcharger using an ICE to run the electric motors, then in principle we pretty much already know it's possible from a power density perspective
They have the advantage building the powerplant (and all its periphery) into the chassis. That saves a lot of material on engine mounts and covers, you can skip the cabin heater heat pump, ect.
A big difference is also if you design it for towing or not. You can probably get functionally infinite highway range with a 20kW ICE if you don't want to tow. And those you can build real tiny. You can probably do with a 125cc with the cutest little turbo the world has every seen.
A generator capable of more then 20mph charging would be beyond the towing capacity.
Are you sure? Google tells me a Cybertruck uses around 400 Wh of energy per mile. 20 miles worth of charging then would be 8000 Wh. To generate that much in an hour would take an 8000 W generator.
The first 8000 W generator I found [1] is 200 lbs.
Here's a 24000 W generator [2] that weighs 455 lbs. The weight of its fuel (propane) would be a little under 17 lbs for each hour's worth.
[1] https://www.generac.com/residential-products/portable-genera...
[2] https://www.generac.com/globalassets/products/residential/st...
range extender wartime style:
https://x.com/KyivPost/status/1608407902242635781?lang=en
Photos of the battery show it is half only full of cells, and a lead engineer at Tesla commented as much.
I think it likely there will be a much higher range version later, but they’re cell constrained for now so they’re only putting one layer of cells into the pack
I suspect they are more constrained by cell thermals/cooling otherwise why take the obvious PR hit of providing much less range than promised.
The range extender is a bit of an odd product considering both the range added (limited) and the form factor (taking up a lot of space in the back).
While the range drop is disappointing, it's still plenty of range. More than enough for normal drivers that aren't anxiety ridden about range. Most people only drive about 12000 miles per year. And rarely over 300 in a single day. And when you do go on a long trip: relax, have a break (you'll need it) and charge up the car and yourself. It's not healthy to be on the road non stop regularly. You can charge the car up plenty over a nice lunch break. If you need a second stop after nine hours of driving or so, you need a break as well. And no, you aren't super human.
The product itself seems popular. Tesla now is starting to dominate the truck market. And they only barely started ramping up production. It's going to be interesting to see how they'll do when they reach their production volume targets. It's of course a divisive product with its styling and features. But it's arguably performing well in sales. Despite the currently high price.
>Tesla now is starting to dominate the truck market.
Do you mean “dominate” in some sort of philosophical way unrelated to numbers?
That statement is spoken by people who only look at the us second quarter ev pickup truck sales and see the cyber truck at even with all others combined. Forgetting that is a tiny niche market, the time window is favourable for the cybertruck and forget the many of petrol versions.
https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/tesla-cybertruck-dominates-...
No, as in it's the #3 EV in the US after the other two Teslas and in front of all other EV trucks combined. Based on the numbers.
If you meant the "EV truck market" you should have said that rather than completely moving the goalposts when someone called you on your false claims.
I hope that with that small caveat, you agree that the Cybertruck completely and utterly dominates the EV truck market now. Which is a notion that seems to upset a lot of people here.
As for my other "false" claims? Which are you referring to? You used the plural here. And since we're being pedantic ...
> I hope that with that small caveat…
This makes sense. Similarly, General Mills now is starting to dominate the bacon* market with their Cinnamon Toast Crunch Bacon.
https://www.kare11.com/article/life/food/2-minnesota-compani...
*cinnamon sugar encrusted bacon market
Range extender's range extender when ?
The Full Self Extending Range Extender: preorder now! Only $7999!
The title here matches the original title of the article, but I have to say: what is with the comma between subject and predicate in a sentence?
Ex. Mary, eats a pie.
"Tesla delays [and] reduces": the comma is used as an "and" (common in American titles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_splice)
The comma seems completely fine?
Your example is not the same construction, "Mary turns off the oven, eats a pie" is a more similar type of phrasal construction.
I somehow misread. No more commenting for me before coffee.
Cybertruck steer-by-wire was really fun and interesting to try, some have FSD for test drives too, would really recommend giving it a try before hating so much: https://www.tesla.com/drive