Realize that this recall is solved by an over the air software update that is already deployed.
When the car is put into reverse, the image sometimes took a few seconds longer than the two seconds mandated by law.
Hmm. My non-CT seems to take longer than 2 seconds, but I’m stunningly impatient. Now I’ll have to time it.
Who knew there was a regulatory standard for that? Not I. TIL …
It’s kinda silly how many snail mail recall notices I’ve gotten for things that were fixed months ago by a software patch that I was barely aware of. The NHTSA really needs to have a different classification for “recalls” that don’t in fact require recalling the vehicle back to the dealer/manufacturer. At least don’t force the manufacturer to waste paper notifying owners that they can confirm have the update already!
On the upside, we do know that at least 27,000 Cybertrucks have been sold. Not bad for less than a year in.
Recalls include unsold vehicles
Seems academic in the case of Tesla since they don’t have dealers. There’s only ever a small number of cars which are “finished” but not yet actually sold. It might even be negative in some cases.
All that means is that unsold inventory doesn’t pile up on dealer lots, it piles up wherever Tesla can put it.
Earlier this year it was reported that Tesla had over 45,000 unsold vehicles in its inventory.
Ok, but Tesla sells about 10x that number per quarter, so it’s about 9 days of production. Meanwhile, it’s 80 days for the rest of the industry.
Due to the sloped hood, it supposedly has much better visibility than the typically light truck. At least, my friend the Tesla fan tells me they actually advertised that feature, showing how many sitting children in a row were invisible to the typical truck driver, and that it was a lot fewer for the CT.
I’m a little older than you, and i used to DRAW cars that looked like that all the time in elementary school. Only, being a child of the space age, mine had rocket flames coming out the back. So i kinda get the aesthetic, too. Except it looks fake and cartoony, like the video of Jeb (a Minecraft developer) stepping into a Minecraft Minecraft. But i imagine it appeals to a chunk of people.
Agreed. As I said, I get it, but with my internal 12 year old, not my current sensibilities. And even then, as @BeepKillBeep’s video (very long, if amusing) mentions, it works BETTER when placed in an environment that matches, like a post-apoc or dystopian wasteland of the future. When parked next to a soccer dad’s SUV and a Honda civic at the local movie theater though, it looks completely out of place!
And most of the fictional inspirations have a bit more… features to break up the lines and flat panels a bit. The cybertruck is so plain on the exterior that you can’t help but see how much it looks like something drawn for an Atari-era tank game.
Not, and giving credit where it’s due, that accomplishing that didn’t require some impressive engineering, but it seems a waste of effort when the result makes it look more cheap, rather than more advanced to a large number of customers (not all though!).
I mean the Chinese concept vehicle that seems strongly influenced by the CT seems a lot more attractive to me, while still evoking the retro 80’s future, and being closer to modern sensibilities:
That looks like you can’t see out the front windshield. I’m kinda getting used to cars with shitty rear visibility, but no front visibility, either?
Well, it’s a concept car, so I bet much/most of it is style over substance right now, with little things like “visibility” being a distance concern at best. Was hoping to illustrate the point that there were possibilities in styling that Musk could have done that would have kept the 80s-kid-kool gee whiz options, but weren’t quite so brutalist. And would probably have been much easier to make.
While there are plenty of reported technical issues with the CT (again, being scrupulously fair, some of which could be expected of any brand new vehicle model), the aesthetic ones almost certainly are 100% deliberate, and at least 90% Elon’s direct input/fault.
Hmmm, they both look terrible to me, and I like the CT better between the two of them. The Chinese vehicle looks like a big mechanized suppository.
Never thought I’d utter either of those sentences.
Hmmm, that’s not what i thought suppositories look like. But i agree that it’s aggressively ugly.
I saw this Cyber Smurf today:
Seems that the early adopters’ 6 months insurance policies are starting to expire and they’re just now learning that they’re getting dropped.
Cite? Not disputing you, but curious about the reality.
I’d not be surprised that the premiums for any new almost-revolutionary vehicle will suffer large run-ups as the carriers gain experience with repair costs.
So I wonder how much is carriers flat dropping CT owners versus carriers saying e.g. “Last 6 months’ premium was $2000. Next 6 months will be $4000. Wanna renew?” and the owner’s recoiling in disgust asserting it’s the carriers constructively dropping them.
Speaking as someone with a P&C license who was a capture agent for auto insurance decades ago… @LSLGuy’s scenario seems more likely.
Back then, we didn’t, generally, refuse to write a policy for anyone has a former high risk carrier. There were vehicles we didn’t write, and for some of the same reasons the CT might qualify (especially former postal vehicles, because no modifications made them safe enough for road use in the company’s opinion, which may or may not have any bearing on the CT), but we’d write policies that no sane person would want to pay for.
Specifically, I recall a quote I delivered for a brand new tricked out Ford Mustang to a 19 year old in Detroit with 4 (!) At-Fault Accidents with tickets (one reckless, one, careless, one excess speed, and one red light). Cost was over $12000 a year, or roughly one third the cost of the car.
Looks like the whole thing was a misunderstanding:
Some guy was dropped coverage, the usual hysterical media sources spin it into insurance carriers dropping Cybertruck coverage en masse, etc. All without even bothering to check with the carriers to see if it was true.
Reporting has been muddy, I’ll just link you to the chat in the Musk Twitter thread.
But I will note, I tried to get a quote from Geico this morning for a CT using both their vehicle dropdowns and a VIN from the internet and their website told me in no uncertain terms that it was a non-insurable vehicle. Now they seem to be backtracking while acknowledging that some customers may have been told that their coverage was being dropped.
It is clear, at least, that Cybertrucks are fragile and repairing them is monstrously expensive if it’s even possible.
Smells more like a PR scramble than a misunderstanding.
eta: And I still can’t request a quote through their website.