Yeah. We’d had various comments upthread about people speculating in these vehicles. Sounds like that “agent” did OK for himself.
Also sounds like the owner should have worked to get some special-placement gap insurance for his very special situation. Instead, he went Cheap Charlie with Allstate with rather predictable results.
He paid the premiums for the insurance he bought, not the insurance he now wishes he’d bought.
Dumb-asses gonna dumb-ass.
How does a $77k virtually bullet proof super truck get totaled by a scooter?
We don’t know and the story doesn’t say but very obviously there is way more to the story. The big ones are kind of heavy and maybe he crashed into a wall trying to avoid one. But…clickbait
It’s a second-hand report of a second-hand report, with no attribution to the supposed original poster, so…meh.
In addition to clickbait, I suspect out and out lies on one or more points. What we have is an “online” report, then reposted on Reddit with zero documentation.
I take it with a one meter cube of salt.
Especially as no mention of WHY the damages resulted in a total loss, such as @Cheesesteak points out.
As a general rule, if a headline contains the word “after”, you’re being lied to. You’re meant to assume a causal relationship exists between two events when said relationship hasn’t been established.
Here’s an article from which the picture in the Torque News article’s Reddit link was lifted (click and scroll down):
That was back in January of last year, and it was a Corolla that hit the Cybertruck (unless that story is also fake.)
And here’s the direct Reddit link whence the scooter story seems to get its information.
So the story was just fabricated from whole cloth, and TorqueNews picked it up with zero attempt at verification.
There are numerous stories from TorqueNews in this thread. Perhaps they should be looked at with a bit more skepticism.
Seems like it. It took me all of a click on the Reddit photo and “search using Google Lens” to find it. Like literally ten seconds.
Welcome to the future of “news”. And not just automotive news.
The article mentions – but does not show – photos showing the airbags deployed. I believe that means an automatic totaling of the vehicle.
Ed. after scrolling down: Or bad reporting.
I had a fairly new not so damaged BMW totalled a couple years ago.
6 airbags at $~4K each plus installation goes a long way towards totalling a car whose metal is still in OK shape.
I bet a CT’s airbags are vastly more expensive than BMW’s. That plus a new side panel & any degree of frame warp (so risk of hidden battery pack damage) and the CT’s fate is sealed.
Nearly a third of a megawatt. 435 horsepower equivalent. Pretty crazy how much power they’re pushing through that little connector.
Still short of powering a flux capacitor.
It’s equivalent to only 3,724 Cybertrucks charging simultaneously. I think that could be pulled off.
The Chinese Li Mega can charge at a peak of 552kW and maintains over 300kW up to 90%.
Impressive to be sure, but I can’t tell if any public stations actually support that rate. All new Superchargers are V4, though (thousands at this point). And anyway, that’s China.
In principle, some Electrify America stations already supported 350 kW, but I’ve never heard of a car getting close to that.
China has 600kW chargers now. All I’m saying is it’s not especially impressive from a technical perspective. Such technology was already routine in China 3 years ago and now has been exceeded by 70% well over 18 months ago.
The Kia EV6/Hyundai Ioniq 5 platform has supported 350kW charging since 2021.
Proofs-of-concept aren’t that interesting. What matters is if you ship. And also whether you actually hit your theoretical numbers. When Tesla started shipping 250 kW charging stations, I went to one to see if my Model 3 could actually reach that… and it could (and >1000 mph rate of range increase).
Again, supporting that in some theoretical sense is not the same as actually delivering that power. I’ve only seen articles like this:
I saw lower power at first, then a burst to 202 kw, briefly at 35%, with power settling to just above 150 kw for the rest of the charge.
Ok, so 202 kW is the actual limit. These guys got slightly better at ~220 kW peak:
If a “350 kW” charger is delivering less kilowatts than a 250 kW one, then it’s not really 350 kW, is it?
What would be the reason to limit the power below 350 the whole time? Yes, there’s charge level vs rate shaping at the low and high end of battery state. But otherwise in the fat middle part of the charge curve IST very naïve M, the only reason not to run the charge current at flat-out is heat rejection concerns. Either in the charger, the cabling, or the battery. Which can be designed around. But evidently have not been; or at least not fully.
Now that is an interesting unit of measure. How fast is the far end of your current range zipping down the highway towards your destination as you charge?
When the nav system on my ICE is engaged one of the things it displays is predicted fuel level at destination. The fuel gauge’s arc color codes into “fuel earmarked to burn to get to destination” on top and “fuel left over at destination” at the bottom. Sorta the same idea, but on the discharge side of the ledger, not the charging side.
Now I’ll have to time my next fuel-up to see what my rate of range increase is while fueling. At WAG 5 minutes for ~400 miles from empty to full that’s ~5000mph range increase rate.
XKCD of course has some info on novel units of measure for vehicle range & such. But be warned, it’s a rather shitty article: Droppings.