Tesla Cybertruck

[Dr.Strangelove]

@jz78817

the shape makes it difficult to do a real good comparison, but looking at it vs. a crew cab F-150 makes me think it might have trouble fitting in a lot of garages.

According to this page, it has dimensions of 231.7"L x 79.8"W x 75"H. And according to this page, and F-150 Supercrew with 6.5’ bed has dimensions 243.7"L x 79.9"W x 75.7"H (without mirrors).

So pretty much identical aside from the length, where the F-150 is about a foot longer. The F-150 Supercab is 231.9" long, which makes it almost exactly the same as the Cybertruck, but given the cab-forward design of the Cybertruck, interior space is probably comparable (superior, even) to the Supercrew. Or, Supercrew+5.5’ bed is also 231", but the Cybertruck has a 6.5’ bed.

At any rate, they’re all big trucks. Not quite F-250 big, though. Also, I don’t know if the 75" height is the minimum. It might be able to go lower to squeeze into a garage.

[digs]

@jz78817

the shape makes it difficult to do a real good comparison, but looking at it vs. a crew cab F-150 makes me think it might have trouble fitting in a lot of garages.

Oh, you don’t park it in your present garage. You’ll redesign your house to match…

[beowulff]

@digs

Oh, you don’t park it in your present garage. You’ll redesign your house to match…

Golf clap.

[swampspruce]

I’d live there… Nice views.

[jz78817]

@Dr.Strangelove

I’m not seeing the contradiction.

because it appeals to the desire to project a dominating or intimidating appearance, same as lifted bro-dozers. except this time it’s appealing to anti-social geeks instead of anti-social suburban wannabe rednecks.

[steronz]

@Dr.Strangelove

I’m not seeing the contradiction. The difference is literally in the mocking name: gas guzzlers burn precious fossil fuels and emit nasty pollution, harming both people and the climate. Take that away and there’s nothing legitimate to complain about.

That’s precisely the point I’m challenging. Even in sunny California or Arizona, electricity production has an environmental impact. Transmission lines and equipment, solar panel or wind turbine production, etc. These are all things that wear out and have to be produced, shipped, repaired and replaced, and a lot of those steps involve burning fossil fuels. Lithium has to be mined at great environmental expense. Here in Ohio, any Cybertrucks that sell are going to be powered mostly by fracked natural gas.

I’m not trying to trot out the same tired arguments against electric cars in general, I understand they’re important evolutionary step in green transportation. But any vehicle that’s 30% larger than it needs to be is 30% more wasteful than it needs to be, regardless of how it’s powered. An H2 burned 30% more gas and was ridiculed for it, even though in the grand scheme of things H2s don’t make a world of difference to the environment. They just didn’t sell a lot and the ones that were didn’t exactly rack up the miles. But people still hated them for what they represented - - waste. Why should something as ridiculous as a 6500lb Cybertruck escape the same ridicule just because its environmental impact is more subtle?

[dtilque]

A vote against the name by a naming expert.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@jz78817

because it appeals to the desire to project a dominating or intimidating appearance, same as lifted bro-dozers. except this time it’s appealing to anti-social geeks instead of anti-social suburban wannabe rednecks.

I get that… but so what? 95% of what others are interested in is a complete mystery to me, and this kind of peacocking behavior is close to the top of that list. So sure, at some level it bugs me, but I don’t *really *care unless they’re damaging the rest of us. Oil burners cause massive damage through climate change and other externalities. An oversized EV truck is much less damaging in that respect.

Maybe you’re coming in with the assumption that the Cybertruck is completely worthless as a utilitarian vehicle. If that were true I’d be more sympathetic to the argument, but I’d strongly dispute the premise. It’s obviously not going to replace the F-150 line but it’s going to have some very handy applications. I think the roll-down bed cover alone is going to be a really desirable feature in some construction situations where equipment theft is a big problem.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@steronz

I’m not trying to trot out the same tired arguments against electric cars in general, I understand they’re important evolutionary step in green transportation.

You’re using the same form of argument, though: qualitative, not quantitative. I don’t dispute that a lot of (maybe even most of) the people driving the Cybertruck won’t actually need it for any utilitarian need, and most of the rest would still be better served by Home Depot truck rentals and the like. Nevertheless, I only really care if they’re causing disproportionate damage. If they’re causing less damage than a Prius, then it’s still the gas holdouts that need to be convinced, not the people driving bigger EVs than they need.

So how bad is it, actually? This page lists CO2 per kWh for various areas. In particular, we can look at the US average (0.98 lbs/kWh), CA avg (0.5 lbs/kWh), and PG&E (the big Silicon Valley producer, with 0.16 lbs/kWh).

Tesla hasn’t reported Cybertruck efficiency, but I think we can expect it to be somewhat worse than the Model X. 450 Wh/mi is probably reasonable (maybe 400 on efficient tires, but I doubt we can count on that on average). Supposing the average 13,000 miles per year, we have:
US avg: 5733 lbs CO2/year
CA avg: 2925 lbs/year
PG&E: 936 lbs/year

Now consider a 55 mpg Prius. That’s 236 gallons per year, and at 20 lbs/gal, 4727 lbs/year. So, the Cybertruck is a bit worse than a Prius for average US power, but a lot better in CA, and *much * better in PG&E land (let alone all the local carbon-free energy producers).

Consider instead a 20 mpg F-150. It’s emitting 13,000 lbs of CO2 per year. If you can convince just *one *Californian F-150 driver to switch to a Cybertruck, it’s like taking two full Priuses off the road completely. It’s an insane difference in emissions.

CO2 of course isn’t the entire impact of big trucks, but I’d say it’s by far the most important one. The raw materials of the Cybertruck should be easily recycled (like most cars these days). I’m hoping we’ll see a robust economy in repurposing older vehicle cells into stationary storage where they don’t mind a slightly reduced energy density. And then there’s the increased threat to other road users from having such a massive vehicle, but overall Tesla produces vehicles with advanced collision prevention systems, so hopefully that’ll take the edge off.

In short, if CO2 is the big ticket item we care about, then getting people to switch to an EV at all is by far the most important thing one can do. If some people take bribing with EV monster trucks, so be it. I’ll worry about downsizing those after everyone is on board with EVs.

[RioRico]

I will now oppose the CbrTrk and all EVs. Humanity needs more high-pollutin’, rootin’-tootin’, poison-shootin’ demon trucks, yes indeed. We NEED to befoul Terra so much that desperate humanity claws for the stars and conquers the universe… before the next extinction event here. Clean vehicles won’t drive us to escape off-planet. Musk will leave us sitting ducks for the next big asteroid strike, long overdue.

We can prevent this. High-sulfur diesel fuel in dirty engines will save us. More VWs and BMWs! More soot and smog! Burn down more forests! CbrTrk fleets can quietly convoy the ashes to a school playground near you. Be sure to charge batteries from coal-fired power plants.

[steronz]

Whatever. Let people trade in their Model 3s for Cybertrucks. Doesn’t matter to me.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@steronz

Whatever. Let people trade in their Model 3s for Cybertrucks. Doesn’t matter to me.

As long as there are reasonable numbers also trading in their full-size trucks, I’ll take the trade.

Well, we’ll find out in a couple of years. Tesla has made no secret of their trade-in numbers in the past. The top trade-in for the Model 3 was a Prius. Ok, another eco-mobile–big deal. But #2 is the BMW 3 series. And that’s really fantastic news, since it’s attracting buyers outside of the usual eco circles.

If even a few tens of percent of Cybertruck buyers are trading in big oil burning trucks (or truck frame SUVs), I’ll consider that a huge environmental win. And hopefully Rivian and others can take up the rest of the market.

[Renee]

My husband and I work in construction. We currently have a little hatchback toyota scion, and and big stinky diesel f250 (7.3 engine.) Both have big dents from being in construction areas, so the person upthread who thought it was silly that these things would be designed to take a sledge-hammer blow…yeah, that would be great.

We aren’t in the market for a new truck right now, but this would be a definite contender if we were. We need the truck for towing capacity and general hauling of lumber and saws and all that shit, but I hate driving the F250. I really don’t care what the thing looks like, only what it can do. Having usable outlets in the bed is awesome, towing capacity sounds great, long-ish bed…I like it.

[Dr_Paprika]

The Cybertruck is not as the ugly as the Aztek. I think it’s good that someone is trying to make an affordable electric truck. I’m less sure that this will actually be made, given Musk’s love of mischief. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to use metal which is hard to shape. And the lack of give might not be good for collision safety tests. I’m sure there is a market for a futuristic truck and real armour proof glass.

[jz78817]

@Dr_Paprika

The Cybertruck is not as the ugly as the Aztek. I think it’s good that someone is trying to make an affordable electric truck. I’m less sure that this will actually be made, given Musk’s love of mischief. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to use metal which is hard to shape. And the lack of give might not be good for collision safety tests. I’m sure there is a market for a futuristic truck and real armour proof glass.

there’s a lot about this thing that doesn’t make sense, but the faithful will scoff at idiots who don’t see its “obvious” brilliance.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Dr_Paprika

And the lack of give might not be good for collision safety tests.

There are several orders of magnitude difference in kinetic energy between a 10 lb deadblow hammer vs. a vehicle collision. 3 mm stainless will still crumple like so much tinfoil if designed to. Just like every other modern car, the Cybertruck will clearly have internal energy dissipation elements–beams that deform in a controlled way, etc. Demos of the Cybertruck’s dent resistance have essentially nothing to do with its collision safety.

Tesla has never skimped on their cars’ safety in the past, and I see no evidence that they’re about to start.

[Spiderman]

The facts come out; it’s really made of mashed potatoes.

[begbert2]

@Spiderman

The facts come out; it’s really made of mashed potatoes.

I am saddened that CNN reported on that.

Lots of things in life sadden me, come to think of it.

[swampspruce]

@Spiderman

The facts come out; it’s really made of mashed potatoes.

I think it was foolish of him to build it with the ramp down. How are you supposed to contain all the gravy and butter?

[Dewey_Finn]

Someone suggested modifying the roofline of the Cybertruck so that the part above the rear passenger seats is horizontal. The linked page has Photoshopped images showing the difference. It does improve the look of the vehicle somewhat and improves headroom for anyone sitting in the backseat. (It might also allow people to mount stuff more easily to the roof.)