By “older” I meant 65+ (I almost said “elderly”). The middle-age people here were 40-50. The kids were 6-14.
The kids get it because the vibe is still something they experience. Some but not all of the middle-agers get it because, as I think we all agree, it’s swiping an aesthetic that first appeared in their childhoods. Whether that pushes the nostalgia button for a particular person depends on the person. But the seniors? No nostalgia and a lifetime of cars that don’t look like that at all. Trucks in particular haven’t changed much at all.
To me clear, I don’t have all that many data points. Less than a dozen people total. But it sorta matches what I’ve heard elsewhere.
I haven’t talked to any seniors about the the Cybertruck so I’ll have to take you at your word that they hate it.
I won’t say that ALL the middle-aged people I’ve heard opine on it hate it but it’s probably a 9:1 ratio in favor of hating it. Everyone “gets” it, it’s just that the vast majority think it looks bad. Some people soften their stance from “Worst thing ever” to “Eh, still ugly” when it’s wrapped. Bare steel just gets unflattering comparisons to dirty kitchen appliances.
My 25 year old think it looks stupid but that’s the extent of my youth polling. Little kids might think it’s neat but that doesn’t mean much. Not so much “kids are dumb” but I thought lots of things were “neat” as a kid that haven’t carried with me to today. Unless I’m selling things TO a kid, it doesn’t matter much anyway. Anyway, I don’t think there’s much meaningful to take away from it about how older people don’t have the “frame of reference” or whatever.
FWIW, the group of folks ragging on its looks in the chat room at work ranged from early 20s to nearing retirement. No one was sticking up for its looks.
Hey, don’t knock it! Economical, reliable, comfortable, and I never have any trouble finding it in a parking lot. Well, other than it being hidden by hulking SUVs beside it.
My ex-boss once called him Tim’s Weeney and that’s how I’ve heard his name in my head ever since.
If Tim really wants Musk cred, he should start a rocket company like John Carmack did. Then again, he’s richer than Carmack ever was. Mostly due to selling useless digital trinkets.
This car Youtuber puts the Cybertruck through some extreme durability tests and it does not go well for the Cybertruck:
The result that’s been getting the most attention is the tow hitch being directly attached to the cast aluminium frame in a way that towing too much directly snaps the frame in a way that totals the car because the frame is cast in one piece (~6m in).
The entire thing is worth a watch though as its shocking how much damage can be done just by him manually ripping parts off the truck like the mirrors, trim and accelerator pedal. Plenty of serious design flaws he uncovers that would require a fundamental redesign to address.
I’m not a cybertruck fan, but based on other vehicles I’ve owned (and far too much classic Top Gear) I have a good idea of how much damage someone who is making even a casual/bored effort can do with their bare hands to the vehicle.
That’s not dismissing the vehicle, nor the stupidity of it’s claims of being super-rugged/bulletproof and other hideous exaggerations, just that this particular claim is probably true of MANY vehicles.
The frame didn’t fracture because he towed the other truck. It obviously fractured on the previous test where the entire weight of the truck slams down on the rear edge after dropping 18" or so onto concrete. The tow just finished the job. There are plenty of videos of the CT doing tractor pulls and the like just fine, which involve way more pulling force.
Probably more like 30". It first hits the cylinder, then drops onto a horizontal ledge:
I don’t think many vehicles are designed for this kind of abuse. We’ll never know if the F-150 is one of them because it got stuck before completing that test.
That’s probably true. But steel fatigues and fails differently from aluminum, and it’s easier to repair. A steel frame likely wouldn’t have had the same issue.
Lots of people praised the engineering behind those castings, including me. But Tesla never claimed gigacastings were more durable – just cheaper, with fewer parts and less assembly time required. And as all products eventually become cheaper to produce and more disposable, this is no different. Far from being more rugged than your average truck, what we’re seeing is that the cybertruck is just an iphone.
Rear bumper aside, the failure mode we’re seeing for CT accidents is that the steel panels will snag stuff and bend, destroying whatever flimsy substrate they’re bolted to. It’s fairly obvious why insurance companies hate this thing.
There is no reason for insurers to care about the durability or repairability of one vehicle type versus another. As long as they can predict the durability and repairability and then price coverage accordingly.
I can see how here in the first year-ish of mass market availability of CTs, some insurers failed to play it safe (enough) and got burned by offering too-low premiums on teh very first CTs on the road.
Car insurance is usually renewed, and therefore priced, at 6-month intervals. The carriers all share their loss experience through the IIS. So any insurer who’s writing or renewing vehicle casualty loss policies today and who doesn’t have a hefty incremental premium for CTs, and for EVs in general, deserves the financial shellacking they’re sure to receive.
I was doing to fight this analogy, but on reflection I think it sorta fits.
Those ancient Nokias had a reputation for being indestructible, but that wasn’t the whole truth. The screen would get scratched to hell just under normal use, the coloring on the case would chip, the text on the buttons would rub off after a while. If you dropped it it would fly apart into a half a dozen pieces, which you could usually reassemble, though maybe with some of the plastic clips broken off. It wasn’t anywhere close to waterproof. And of course it was missing a lot of features, like cameras.
A modern smartphone is different. The screens basically don’t scratch unless you abuse them. They don’t take any damage under a certain threshold. Moderate drops don’t do anything. Drop them in a pool and they survive. And they’re protecting a lot more internal stuff than the Nokia.
But when you do exceed some threshold, it’s basically catastrophic. The screen cracks. The camera lens shatters. The case bends, and you can’t just buy a replacement cover. The whole thing is glued together so it’s almost unrepairable. You’re mostly better off just buying a new one.
In a loose sense, some of the same is true here. The castings are lighter, stiffer, and stronger than a steel frame. They do perfectly up to some damage threshold, but when you exceed that it’s catastrophic. Calling it more or less rugged isn’t quite what’s going on–what’s happening is that the ruggedness is becoming more binary. It’s either failed or it isn’t, without much of an intermediate state.
For what it’s worth, Tesla apparently is planning on a repair procedure for that part:
Probably because it’s also the rear crumple zone and they’d want some way of repairing minor rear-enders. Still, the procedure doesn’t exist yet and will undoubtedly be pretty expensive. Maybe not as bad as that Rivian with a dented corner that cost $40k to repair, though.
.
