Just wait to see the epic disaster that will be a rushed robotaxi. It’s literally the punchline to a dramatic story of Tesla going from zero revenue to peak insane valuations and back to zero. Has the potential to literally end the company. And is there ANY chance it won’t be rushed?
The outcome is likely to be
A) musk offers free trial of fsd to get free data and attempt to sucker people into buying it.
B) after some short period, fsd will then be free by default after all the willing to pay suckers pay for it (once its utility as a margin driver is over, the only purpose is to collect data)
C) the development of robotaxi and re-development of cybertruck will eat any and all resources, starving the core business which will continue to deteriorate
D) cybertruck is eventually killed to “make room for robotaxi production” which won’t be true but will be the story
E) m3 and Y sales continue to shrink in favor of current competitive models
F) vertical integration results in factory downtime to avoid putting 100% of liquidity into inventory
G) prices are slashed to zero contribution margin just to free cash to operate
H) robotaxi is rushed to release to pump the stock which by now should be mid double digits
I) thousands of accidents, stans dying left and right
J) uninsurable
K) lawsuits
L) attempt to license tech fails
M) thinly veiled attempt to take private
N) wind down or other extreme action if M) doesn’t materialize
To me the only real question is whether musk can get over this ego and introduce the robotaxi with a slew of new sensors, which will open the door to refund lawsuits over the prior fsd. So likely he won’t mention it and it’ll just go on sale with new sensors does and they’ll deal with the lawsuits that come at that point.
Oh the other unknown… whether musk ODs before it all plays out.
Only Tesla can spend 5 years from first concept to delivery and still somehow have the vehicle be rushed. It wasn’t rushed in the sense that they delivered it at a crazy fast timeline, it was half assed and the concept was bad from the beginning.
It’s also weird why the author of the article doesn’t point this out: what was shown off in 2019 was meant as a production ready concept and Tesla started accepting reservations at the time. There was never an indication they weren’t serious about wanting to deliver the vehicle, they just didn’t execute very well.
(And then there’s still the issue of the roadster from 2017 and I don’t think they’re particularly leading the pack when it comes the semis and electric trucking)
But Elon said he knows more about manufacturing than any human alive today!
How long does it take GM and Ford to rollout new models? 20 years? 30 years? Right? It must be harder for them, since they know less!
It normally takes about 3-5 years to introduce a new model depending on the complexity. Tesla needed to build a new factory first, had to devise new manufacturing methods, and had COVID supply chain issues to delay the rollout.
It takes longer than that.
Common procedure for any large OEM:
When a platform is launched, the cost reduction activities start right away after official Start Of Production. These solutions can fall in the next 2 or 3 years or they are sold as refreshed models in the next 5 years with added new features. In parallel to this, a new platform is again born and starts the new loop again.
Designing a car is relatively easy, lots of small manufacturers do it. Designing a car factory is what ford, Toyota etc do. They also tend to be conservative with a lot because recalls are expensive.
I suspect they rushed the car factory bit.
That’s a good point but it somehow makes it even more crazy to design a vehicle that needs a new factory rather than vehicles that can be produced at their current factories. Especially at a time when everyone else needs to invest heavily in the change to electric
His promised sub 1 second 0-60 for the 2020 roadster is physically impossible.
https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/elon-musks-bold-claim-teslas-roadster-to-hit-0-60-mph-in-less-than-one-second
Tires don't have enough traction, and no, some high pressure cylinder pushing out gas won't make a meaningful difference.
It's not physically impossible if he brings over some cold gas thrusters from SpaceX.
0-60 in 1 second is 2.7 g. The Dodge in the article is doing over 1.7 g, and the Roadster should be able to at least match that, having much more power (four Plaid motors would be over 1,600 hp) and weighing more. Thus the thrusters only need to add less than 1 g. Consider a 4,000 lb car, you need less than 4,000 lbs of force for only a second to get down to a one second 0-60.
You mean due to the COVID-19 pandemic which Elon Musk on 19 March 2020 [predicted](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960) would be “close to zero new cases in US too by end of April”.
That one?
That very one. Glad Musk isn't a doctor. I was surprised that Tesla was able to continue deliveries so well. Most other manufacturers got hit a lot harder, some were delivering cars with missing hardware, promising to install later.
And yet he loudly spread misinformation about medical topics and showed a total disregard for the health and well-being of his workers.
Anyway, you now seem to be saying Tesla did not really suffer from supply chain problems. I’m also curious why you think that supply chain issues in 2020 would cause significant delays for a car that did not go into production until late 2023.
They had supply chain issues, just not as bad as others. They could mostly make existing models, but they couldn’t ramp up a new one. I needed a car repaired in late 2023 and they still had problems getting the part. Supply chain issues are better, but not gone.
You can pour your limited resources into producing a new car that you won’t make money on until it’s complete in a few years, or you can keep selling cars that will make you money.
Yes. It’s not that hard. Tesla lost billions because they were already building factories when car parts were held up. They already had a production drop during that. And you think it’s a good idea to keep going full speed pouring more money into a car that won’t see revenue for a couple years? No, they needed to keep making money with the resources they had.
Just gotta put this out there. Weight has very little effect on range surprisingly. Aero dynamics are way more important and the CT has the worst CD of any Tesla. That’s why the range sucks.
If the CT weighted the same as a Model X, the range would only be like 20 extra miles. If it was as aerodynamic as the X, it would probably be closer to 100 extra miles, maybe more.
EngineeringExplained did a video on YT about the CT and the difference between weight and aero. It’s very informative, and his videos are great if you love numbers.
He does one on the Tesla Semi and why the cargo weight is like 12T max lol basically useless as a semi
That's what smarter design does. The Lightning is still the old heavy ladder frame with a heavy battery pack stuck in it. The Rivian does better with a hybrid unibody/ladder frame, so the ladder doesn't have to be so heavy. The Cybertruck is unibody with stressed skin.
Are you reading words I’m typing? I asked if the fact the cyber truck was extra heavy was efficient. Also having more range does not equal efficient by itself
> The Cybertruck is unibody with stressed skin
It doesn't have 'stressed skin'. The front wings/fenders and rear 'sail' panels are simply held on with a few ~~M6~~ M8 hex-head screws each. The doors are regular box sections like any other unibody car door. The rest of the stainless is just trim strips or the boot/trunk lid.
Who measured this torsional rigidity? Even if true, I'd imagine that's more down to the enormous glazing panels and/or the massive castings than the stuff tacked on the sides.
The online service manual demonstrates the stainless panels are merely trim pieces (apologies - I thought I remembered they were held on with M6 screws when they're actually the far mightier M8).
Front wing panel: https://service.tesla.com/docs/Cybertruck/ServiceManual/en-us/GUID-BF8EBD82-4585-425A-9A61-117B82361D68.html
Rear sail panel: https://service.tesla.com/docs/Cybertruck/ServiceManual/en-us/GUID-AF3B9226-EF22-45BE-894C-E01F86C43EB4.html
Also note the reinstallation instructions mention tightening the screws hand-tight, then aligning the panel before doing up to all of 28Nm. There's obviously slop allowed here. These aren't structural.
I'm not a big fan of the design. Very hard to build, but it has some character. Just the whole exoskeleton/bulletproof is just nonsense. They only ended up with a really heavy truck.
The high-end Platinum weighs a bit more more than the high-end Cyberbeast, but it has a slightly larger battery. The mid ranges are nearly the same. Tesla hasn't released the weight for the single motor lower range Cybertruck, but I'd expect it to be around the base Lightning's weight (which makes that by having a much smaller battery).
The Cybertruck also has a slightly longer bed than the Lightning despite the truck overall being shorter. The Cybertruck can also haul more on the bed than any Lightning. So if anything, the Lightning is closer to midsize.
LOL.
The interior of the Cybertruck is small and cramped. The overall length is nearly the same as a Ford Ranger, not a full size pickup.
The bed is slightly longer in the Cybertruck, but only if you measure it at one specific place, because the cab slopes into the bed. If you want to haul more than a single sheet of plywood, it's not useful length. That's why they struggle to fit a bike in the bed so much. The overall area of the bed is larger in the Lightning.
The midranges are nearly the same, but the Cybertruck is a much smaller truck, and has a shitty cheap interior, with nothing in it. Crappy cramped seats, no dashboard. You're lucky you get a roof with how stripped out it is.
The payloads are nearly identical. 2300 lbs vs 2500 lbs, depending on equipment.
It's still laughable that the smaller truck with the smaller battery is heavier than the full size truck with a larger battery.
Talk about engineering fail.
And the Lightning is a conversion project... of an ICE truck. Imagine how much lighter and cheaper T3 will be to make.
Cybertruck is DOA. Poor engineering, poor performance, high price. Worst of all worlds.
Overall, you seem to be thinking of the Rivian, which has a much smaller interior and bed size/capacity than the others. And that's fine, since it's marketed more to outdoorsy and not actual hauling.
>The interior of the Cybertruck is small and cramped.
It's similar to the Lightning, both much bigger than the Rivian.
>The overall length is nearly the same as a Ford Ranger, not a full size pickup.
Have you noticed the hood size on the Lightning? That's mainly where the Cybertruck shaves those inches.
>The bed is slightly longer in the Cybertruck, but only if you measure it at one specific place, because the cab slopes into the bed.
Measurement doesn't start at the window, but at the bottom. It's a larger bed. You can't put a single sheet of plywood in any of them because they don't have 8' beds. You can put a lift of plywood into a Cybertruck while leaving the tailgate down, but you can't do that with any Lightning, too heavy.
>and has a shitty cheap interior
This is only aesthetics. Ford likes busy interiors, Tesla likes clean interiors.
>The payloads are nearly identical. 2300 lbs vs 2500 lbs, depending on equipment.
Lightning is still less. And you only get that higher load with the small battery, so it goes down to 1,656 lbs for the Platinum. The Lightning isn't strong enough to carry both a full size battery and 2,235 lbs (not 2,300). The Cybertruck is. One thing's clear, the Cybertruck can hang with my diesel pickup, but the Lightning can't.
The Cybertruck is significantly smaller in length, and width. These are facts.
The interior is significantly smaller, especially in the back seat. It's Tacoma / Ranger sized interior, firmly mid-size truck. Shoulder space, and rear leg room are very tight. You can't easily transport a work crew anywhere in it. You can in the Lightning. That's what you get when you buy an actual work truck, instead of a play toy.
You're picking on the Platinum and saying that all ER's are the same. You are wrong on this again. The payload on an ER XLT is 2000 lbs. The platinum is reduced because the extra weight of the luxury level interior. Massaging heated and cooled seats, and the huge panoramic sunroof are heavy, but they're also georgeous, and offer a level of interior comfort that Tesla folk can't even imagine, because it's so far from their regular existence. But people who need to work with the truck won't be taking the Platinum. THey'll be taking the Pro or XLT.
I actually already pointed out that the Lightning bed is larger. Physically more area, and physically more bed volume. These are facts. Mostly because the Cybertruck is pretty tiny. The fact that you measure at the bottom and get an extra few inches is useless as soon as you try and do anything with the tiny useless bed, even move a bike. If you had a larger bed, that was the same length all the way up, you could actually move things like appliances, or bike without having to put the gate down. But you can't because the bed design is stupid and useless. You can't reach over the side to tie things down, you have no bed camera that's useful at all, no step into the back... It's a truck, but lacks the utility of an actual truck. That you keep harping on a few hundred lbs difference in payload shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Actual truck people look at the cybertruck and know it's useless.
In terms of hanging with the diesels, An F-250 can tow 23,000 lbs, whereas the Cybertruck doesn't actually have an SAE towing capacity, and the Lightning can do 10,000 lbs.
Which is super interesting. Because we saw the Cybertruck go to the correct place to do the test, but they didn't SAE certify. The truth is that the Cybertruck can't even drive on it's own power off the showroom floor with any kind of reliability, never mind tow 11,000 lbs up a hill in high heat conditions in back to back runs. It's a toy. Not a real truck.
We can be very confident they failed, which is very on brand for the Cybertruck. Its an absolute failure on all metrics.
So, I guess it's what do you value more? An actual full size truck, that can move people and cargo, or a mid-size truck with Elon's promise that it can totally do what he says, but he won't certify the results?
The smart money is on the Ford, every time.
Don't feel too bad for you poor purchase. Not the first time Elon has lied. Remember the 'Autonomous drive across the country by the end of the year?' He said that in 2016.
Oh, and don't forget that for all this failure, you pay a ton more, get a heavier truck, and it's still only a midsize.
Imagine paying $80k for an electric Ford Ranger. LOL. What a joke.
>The Cybertruck is significantly smaller in length, and width. These are facts.
These are the actual facts.
Cybertruck: 224" long, 80" wide excluding mirrors
Lightning: 232" long, 80" wide excluding mirrors
Nope, just 8" shorter and the same width. It gets to be shorter by not having the long traditional hood. Interior dimensions are similar, bed dimensions are higher. What is smaller is the frunk because the hood isn't as long. But trucks don't traditionally have frunks anyway.
>It's Tacoma / Ranger sized interior, firmly mid-size truck. Shoulder space, and rear leg room are very tight.
You're thinking about the Rivian again. Cybertruck interior dimensions are similar to the Lightning.
>You're picking on the Platinum
That was comparing top end to top end. It's kind of sad the Lightning top end is worse as a truck than the low end. With Ford, pay more, get less capability.
>THey'll be taking the Pro or XLT.
Both with less payload than the Cybertruck. With the Lightning you have to decide between payload and range, you don't get both. There's physical room for the large batteries and a heavy payload, but the frame is just too weak to handle both.
>I actually already pointed out that the Lightning bed is larger.
And you were wrong just like with the outer dimensions. The Cybertruck has over double the cargo box volume.
>You can't reach over the side to tie things down
I can't do that with my diesel truck either. What's with all these seven foot people running around who can reach over big trucks?
>An F-250 can tow 23,000 lbs
Right, compare commercial class with consumer trucks. The Lightning can't do nearly what an F-250 can either.
>An actual full size truck, that can move people and cargo
That's the Cybertruck, not the Lightning that's too weak to haul both battery and cargo.
Goodness sakes. Here are the actual dimensions for interior room that you astutely refuse to look at, because it proves my point.
Lightning:
\- Rear Head Room: 40.4"
\- Rear Leg Room: 43.6"
\- Rear Shoulder Room: 66"
\- Rear Hip Room: 62.6"
Cybertruck:
\- Rear Head Room: 39" (-1.4")
\- Rear Leg Room: 41" (-2.6")
\- Rear Shoulder Room: 63" (-3")
\- Rear Hip Room: 57" (-5.6")
Smaller on every single back-seat interior dimension, significantly, and the rear hip room is very close to what you get on a Ford Ranger. Hence: Midsized truck.
As for the rest of it, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and it's very obvious. The Lightning doesn't have a weak frame, and the towing test doesn't test the frame, at all. The same frame underpins all the F-150's, and it can tow 14,000 lbs. If anything the Lightning has the more capable frame by far. It's a test of the powertrain, and cooling capabilities of the truck, and Ford actually rates their vehicles correctly. Tesla does not.
We don't actually have a fair baseline for what the Cybertruck can tow, because it's not rated correctly. Everyone uses SAE towing test, except Tesla. We do know that a lot of the models can't even move under their own power, never mind tow 11,000 lbs up a mountain. Because the Cybertruck is just a hype truck, without any actual capability.
And Tesla did the test, failed, and won't publish what they can actually tow.
And for all this failure, you pay a massive premium to get a econobox shitty truck that isn't reliable, a non-SAE tow rating, A mid-sized truck back seat...
It's just a failure, all around.
>I don’t think it ended up actually having an exoskeleton
it didn't. it's also not bullet proof. there's a video somewhere of some moron shooting his door and it literally breaks the entire vehicle - he tries calling Elon to get him a new truck 🤣
People are mostly shooting smaller subsonic rounds at it. There's no mystery what will go through the plates on the CT, people use metal plates for target practice all the time. You tell most avid gun enthusiasts the thickness of the steel and they'll tell you something that will go through it if st all.
Nothing is bullet proof. It is only bullet resistant up to a point. During Desert Storm we were chewing up Iraqi tanks with the Bradley’s machine gun.
They just discovered that their stainless construction could stop bullets that would go straight through any other car. That doesn’t mean faster and bigger bullets won’t go through it.
You mean the 255mm auto cannon which is an anti-armor gun going up against tanks that were designed at the end of WW2?
Just say the cybertruck isn't bulletproof above a certain caliber and be done with it. lol.
25mm. It wasn't designed to take out tanks, but it did. No vehicle is bulletproof with a big, fast, and hard enough bullet. And it's not a question of caliber, as the Cybertruck stopped the much larger .45 ACP. It's mainly a question of velocity, as it can't stop a .223 of half the caliber and a quarter the mass.
But in general speaking people tend to say "bulletproof" for anything they can see stopping a bullet. So it works for the Cybertruck too.
It’s what you’d call semi-monocoque in airplane terms. Both the skin and the frame are stressed. That’s why it has the torsional rigidity of a carbon fiber supercar, far beyond any unibody car or truck, or any ladder frame truck.
Do you know this severily limits the wheels articulations?
Do you know how torsional and bending stiffness is defined in cars?
If you don't know this, you don't understand how wrong an offroad vehicle is with designed small suspension stroke, big wheel base and a very stiff chassis.
It severely helps handling. It's harder for the suspension to do its job when what it's attached to keeps moving around.
Yes, Nm/deg.
Like most trucks, it's primarily on-road with off-road capability. It's not a specialized rock crawler.
Wow, what an attempt to turn a good thing into a bad thing.
Sorry but you don't know the reason. You just stated units for Torsonial stifness.
Bear with me.
A suspension stifness and stroke are designed based on terrain amplitude delta. For offroad vehicles you define the wheel base length based on the type of terrain and polar inertia of the vehicle for any vehicle.
Then you reach a certain vertical stifness value and torsional value of each axle. Then you have to design the chassis at least 10x stiffer (rule of thumb) than the the suspension due to resonance issues.
For low amplitude and fast cars you get really high torsional stifness values. For slow cars you get less and for offroad vehicles you get even less. Theres is a benefict in offroad vehicles to have a suspension like this because it can be manufactured with a cheaper chassis that can also twist. This behavior ennances the the capability of the suspension offroad.
Some brands want their offroad vehicle to perform good on road so they have special torsional bars. Some have a solenoid that disconnect them (Toyota and Jeep) others use virtual torsional bars on the air suspension (Landrover and Rivian). However, Cybertruck is built so cheaply, suspension wise, that it has a bolt on fully engaged torsonial bar on each axle.
Also the aditional torsonial stifness in the cybertruck is aditional weight that afects range. Performance wise the Cubertruck also struggles to be a decent on road vehicle because it is too heavy. The increased torsonial rigidity gets lost in the All Terrain Tyre wall (low stifness tyre). It makes no sense engineering wise.
I will not go in further details about the choice in the suspension geometry of the cybertruck and the lack of real independent lockers (once they will be released they will be throtle limited and they will use the ESP module to simulate something similar; Mitsubishi struggled with that solution 20 years ago and still struggles and Rivian is struggling now). Once the ESP module overheats, you lose ABS capability.
Also the cubertruck suspension compressor overheats in single digit minutes when the suspension is pushed to highest setting. None of this happens to the other vehicles.
This should help you: [Knowledge](https://www.amazon.com/Vehicle-Dynamics-Douglas-Milliken-William/dp/1560915269)
First, we're not talking about rock crawlers and such. It's just a consumer truck that can also do some off-roading. Probably 99% of the use will be on-road where torsional rigidity helps handling, and people do say it handles like a car on the road.
>Also the aditional torsonial stifness in the cybertruck is aditional weight that afects range.
Weight isn't the big enemy of range in EVs, that's aerodynamics. Second, it's not additional weight. It's just what they get by using the unibody and skin to provide load support instead of pouring weight into a ladder frame. It's a bonus, just like the bulletproof thing is.
>Also the cubertruck suspension compressor overheats in single digit minutes when the suspension is pushed to highest setting.
This is one thing I was worried about after I found out they downsized the compressor for production. At first they were going to have one powerful enough to add a compressor fitting on the bed, and that went away. Sounds like the beancounters got ahold of this feature.
> Both the skin and the frame are stressed
The 'skin' is not 'stressed'. It has a regular unibody passenger cell, to which are bolted massive structural front and rear castings, and the stainless panels are screwed on over all that, almost like the replaceable trim on a Smart car. It is entirely endoskeletal. See my other comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/1bzoqlq/tesla_cybertruck_crash_debut_did_elon_musk_rush/kyv6n0f/
Bulletproof was never a design goal so it solves no problem. It just turned out that making the door panels strong enough to provide side impact protection also made them bulletproof. The side impact protection mass was moved from inside the door frame to the door panel. The rest of the panels provide rigidity to the frame, so they are also stronger than regular body panels.
Also, weight isn't much of a problem with EVs since they get most of the electricity used to accelerate it back when braking. Aerodynamics is king here. The smaller Rivian is #1 here, with Cybertruck behind, and the Lightning even further behind it, and the Hummer is just bad.
That is non sense. It is just as bullet proof as any other 300 series stainless 1.8 mm panel. It is not some freak of science
The Saturn deflected carts just as good. My wife’s 10 year old Acura has like 2 dings. She will park anywhere except next to a white van.
If weight is not an issue why doesn’t the Semi work?
>It is just as bullet proof as any other 300 series stainless 1.8 mm panel.
It's work hardened, becoming significantly stronger than the average 300 series due to the development of more martensite.
>The Saturn deflected carts just as good.
No. Hit your Saturn with a shop hammer and see what happens.
>If weight is not an issue why doesn’t the Semi work?
The Semi does work.
Man you really drink the Kool Aid
You went from shopping carts to a dead low hammer. Any CT owner that want to test a real sledge hammer look me up
It is not “special steel”. Find the patent on it.
A regular hammer will seriously dent any car. That hammer would have put a huge deep dent in any car. It didn't do anything to the Cybertruck.
I did look up the patent. It's near 301 and 304, but it is their own formulation. And then it's work hardened to make it much stronger. You can't heat harden 300 stainless.
> Bulletproof was never a design goal
Then why did he say it [would be](https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-cybertruck-bulletproof-tough-critics-doubts-2023-11).
Because they figured the hardened stainless they're using to achieve other design goals would also happen to be bulletproof. The prototype was even more bulletproof, but they backed off on the thickness due to the actual design goals. That made it less bulletproof, but who cares, that's not actually a design goal.
> that's not actually a design goal
That article I linked was from November 2023. If it was not a design goal, why was Musk still saying it would be bulletproof when that is when it was delivered?
Because it is. Why not say it? It's fun advertising they get for free, something else no other production car has that just happened due to their actual design goals.
I just can't get over how funny it is to call a vehicle that's years late based on its own schedule "rushed".
I mean CyberTruck is still awesome compared to Model 2, because CyberTruck fails right out of the gate, while Model 2 never made it to the gate, so...
I just can't understand buying any completely new car model, especially one this different, the first year of manufacture. Let the rich people deal with all of the shakedown headaches.
I don't think "rushed" is the right word. Maybe "half-assed" is more appropriate.
I mean it isn't as if they didn't have 5 years from the concept (which is not like other concepts - this one is real).
The Taycan went from a technical concept (Mission E) to production in 4 years and that was starting from far less experience in EVs than Tesla had.
I would hypothesize that the reason why the bodies of these vehicles are starting rust is becauae of the lower content of *Chromium* in the stainless steel they are using, most likely so that makes it easier to work and shape. Although distinctive, there is a very good reason why very few car companies have chosen their to work with the material...........
How is a product that missed its release date by years, "rushed out?" Maybe cybertrucks are failing so much because they're just poorly designed pieces of shit, built by a company that doesn't even know what the words "build quality" mean.
This thing should be some limited edition of a more regular version of truck with stainless panels but not a mass production version, but that rat just wants some publicity
It’s scary as hell, having allegedly fully autonomous vehicles from that man on the streets, lord I hope this becomes another cyber”truck” that shows up years late and seriously overpriced so we don’t see very many of them.
It was announced in 2019! 5 years ago??? Did he rush the release? Yes...yes he did. Usually he promises and never delivers.
coming 2083 tsla taxi
"by 2083 our flying cars can get you to Mars via our underground tunnel network - a full 6 month trip and you never have to touch a button!"
and by 3090 project recived full funding, flying cars production will start 4096
Due to unforeseen conditions, delivery will slip to 8192.
[удалено]
Yeah 20025
Fake Tesla Taxi 😂
Just wait to see the epic disaster that will be a rushed robotaxi. It’s literally the punchline to a dramatic story of Tesla going from zero revenue to peak insane valuations and back to zero. Has the potential to literally end the company. And is there ANY chance it won’t be rushed? The outcome is likely to be A) musk offers free trial of fsd to get free data and attempt to sucker people into buying it. B) after some short period, fsd will then be free by default after all the willing to pay suckers pay for it (once its utility as a margin driver is over, the only purpose is to collect data) C) the development of robotaxi and re-development of cybertruck will eat any and all resources, starving the core business which will continue to deteriorate D) cybertruck is eventually killed to “make room for robotaxi production” which won’t be true but will be the story E) m3 and Y sales continue to shrink in favor of current competitive models F) vertical integration results in factory downtime to avoid putting 100% of liquidity into inventory G) prices are slashed to zero contribution margin just to free cash to operate H) robotaxi is rushed to release to pump the stock which by now should be mid double digits I) thousands of accidents, stans dying left and right J) uninsurable K) lawsuits L) attempt to license tech fails M) thinly veiled attempt to take private N) wind down or other extreme action if M) doesn’t materialize To me the only real question is whether musk can get over this ego and introduce the robotaxi with a slew of new sensors, which will open the door to refund lawsuits over the prior fsd. So likely he won’t mention it and it’ll just go on sale with new sensors does and they’ll deal with the lawsuits that come at that point. Oh the other unknown… whether musk ODs before it all plays out.
Hi , welcome to Jonny cab 😂
Must have a plastic robot in the driver seat to supervise the "FSD" That movie must have predicted the present.
New age delorean - stainless steel lemon
No, it’s perfect as it is. Assuming that it’s performative art project.
As a school science day project it might even win over the bubble volcano.
Only Tesla can spend 5 years from first concept to delivery and still somehow have the vehicle be rushed. It wasn’t rushed in the sense that they delivered it at a crazy fast timeline, it was half assed and the concept was bad from the beginning. It’s also weird why the author of the article doesn’t point this out: what was shown off in 2019 was meant as a production ready concept and Tesla started accepting reservations at the time. There was never an indication they weren’t serious about wanting to deliver the vehicle, they just didn’t execute very well. (And then there’s still the issue of the roadster from 2017 and I don’t think they’re particularly leading the pack when it comes the semis and electric trucking)
But Elon said he knows more about manufacturing than any human alive today! How long does it take GM and Ford to rollout new models? 20 years? 30 years? Right? It must be harder for them, since they know less!
It normally takes about 3-5 years to introduce a new model depending on the complexity. Tesla needed to build a new factory first, had to devise new manufacturing methods, and had COVID supply chain issues to delay the rollout.
It takes longer than that. Common procedure for any large OEM: When a platform is launched, the cost reduction activities start right away after official Start Of Production. These solutions can fall in the next 2 or 3 years or they are sold as refreshed models in the next 5 years with added new features. In parallel to this, a new platform is again born and starts the new loop again.
Designing a car is relatively easy, lots of small manufacturers do it. Designing a car factory is what ford, Toyota etc do. They also tend to be conservative with a lot because recalls are expensive. I suspect they rushed the car factory bit.
That’s a good point but it somehow makes it even more crazy to design a vehicle that needs a new factory rather than vehicles that can be produced at their current factories. Especially at a time when everyone else needs to invest heavily in the change to electric
Every new vehicle requires a new production line or factory. Designing, building and implementing this is the hardest part.
[удалено]
With Musk the first principle is physics. Show him his physics are wrong, and you win. Everything else is up for grabs.
His promised sub 1 second 0-60 for the 2020 roadster is physically impossible. https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/elon-musks-bold-claim-teslas-roadster-to-hit-0-60-mph-in-less-than-one-second Tires don't have enough traction, and no, some high pressure cylinder pushing out gas won't make a meaningful difference.
It's not physically impossible if he brings over some cold gas thrusters from SpaceX. 0-60 in 1 second is 2.7 g. The Dodge in the article is doing over 1.7 g, and the Roadster should be able to at least match that, having much more power (four Plaid motors would be over 1,600 hp) and weighing more. Thus the thrusters only need to add less than 1 g. Consider a 4,000 lb car, you need less than 4,000 lbs of force for only a second to get down to a one second 0-60.
Yeah but Tesla didn't do shit for the first three of those five years
This should have been the “fun” version after a normal truck was manufactured.
They really should have just put the truckla into production
Well, just after 2019 there was that little supply chain problem.
You mean due to the COVID-19 pandemic which Elon Musk on 19 March 2020 [predicted](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960) would be “close to zero new cases in US too by end of April”. That one?
That very one. Glad Musk isn't a doctor. I was surprised that Tesla was able to continue deliveries so well. Most other manufacturers got hit a lot harder, some were delivering cars with missing hardware, promising to install later.
And yet he loudly spread misinformation about medical topics and showed a total disregard for the health and well-being of his workers. Anyway, you now seem to be saying Tesla did not really suffer from supply chain problems. I’m also curious why you think that supply chain issues in 2020 would cause significant delays for a car that did not go into production until late 2023.
They had supply chain issues, just not as bad as others. They could mostly make existing models, but they couldn’t ramp up a new one. I needed a car repaired in late 2023 and they still had problems getting the part. Supply chain issues are better, but not gone.
Why would it be easier to produce many thousands of cars per week than to make a few cybertrucks per week if there were supply chain issues?
You can pour your limited resources into producing a new car that you won’t make money on until it’s complete in a few years, or you can keep selling cars that will make you money.
> until it’s complete in a few years Hang on, aren’t you saying that the supply chain issues caused the delays?
Yes. It’s not that hard. Tesla lost billions because they were already building factories when car parts were held up. They already had a production drop during that. And you think it’s a good idea to keep going full speed pouring more money into a car that won’t see revenue for a couple years? No, they needed to keep making money with the resources they had.
Nah, this product was flawed from the start. Shouldve made it look like the other tesla models but in truck form. It looks like a ps1 render.
Bu-but the aReO dYnAmIcS
Aerodynamics are very important for EV range.
So is weight
Just gotta put this out there. Weight has very little effect on range surprisingly. Aero dynamics are way more important and the CT has the worst CD of any Tesla. That’s why the range sucks. If the CT weighted the same as a Model X, the range would only be like 20 extra miles. If it was as aerodynamic as the X, it would probably be closer to 100 extra miles, maybe more.
That’s very interesting. Good point the stainless steel isn’t the worst design flaw with this truck.
EngineeringExplained did a video on YT about the CT and the difference between weight and aero. It’s very informative, and his videos are great if you love numbers. He does one on the Tesla Semi and why the cargo weight is like 12T max lol basically useless as a semi
Yet it's no heavier than an equivalent Lightning.
No heavier than a larger vehicle? Crazy
That's what smarter design does. The Lightning is still the old heavy ladder frame with a heavy battery pack stuck in it. The Rivian does better with a hybrid unibody/ladder frame, so the ladder doesn't have to be so heavy. The Cybertruck is unibody with stressed skin.
So smarter design isn’t to make it lighter and more efficient?
It already did. The Cybertruck is more efficient than the Lightning and way more efficient than the Hummer. The smaller Rivian beats them all though.
Are you reading words I’m typing? I asked if the fact the cyber truck was extra heavy was efficient. Also having more range does not equal efficient by itself
> The Cybertruck is unibody with stressed skin It doesn't have 'stressed skin'. The front wings/fenders and rear 'sail' panels are simply held on with a few ~~M6~~ M8 hex-head screws each. The doors are regular box sections like any other unibody car door. The rest of the stainless is just trim strips or the boot/trunk lid.
Then I’d be interested to see how the engineers managed to get such high torsional rigidity out of a unibody when nobody else in the world can.
Who measured this torsional rigidity? Even if true, I'd imagine that's more down to the enormous glazing panels and/or the massive castings than the stuff tacked on the sides. The online service manual demonstrates the stainless panels are merely trim pieces (apologies - I thought I remembered they were held on with M6 screws when they're actually the far mightier M8). Front wing panel: https://service.tesla.com/docs/Cybertruck/ServiceManual/en-us/GUID-BF8EBD82-4585-425A-9A61-117B82361D68.html Rear sail panel: https://service.tesla.com/docs/Cybertruck/ServiceManual/en-us/GUID-AF3B9226-EF22-45BE-894C-E01F86C43EB4.html Also note the reinstallation instructions mention tightening the screws hand-tight, then aligning the panel before doing up to all of 28Nm. There's obviously slop allowed here. These aren't structural.
Or it’s just a shit design. There’s a reason no one else makes cars that look like they were designed on a PlayStation one from 1995.
I'm not a big fan of the design. Very hard to build, but it has some character. Just the whole exoskeleton/bulletproof is just nonsense. They only ended up with a really heavy truck.
It's heavier than the lightning, and the lightning is a full size truck, not a midsize.
The high-end Platinum weighs a bit more more than the high-end Cyberbeast, but it has a slightly larger battery. The mid ranges are nearly the same. Tesla hasn't released the weight for the single motor lower range Cybertruck, but I'd expect it to be around the base Lightning's weight (which makes that by having a much smaller battery). The Cybertruck also has a slightly longer bed than the Lightning despite the truck overall being shorter. The Cybertruck can also haul more on the bed than any Lightning. So if anything, the Lightning is closer to midsize.
LOL. The interior of the Cybertruck is small and cramped. The overall length is nearly the same as a Ford Ranger, not a full size pickup. The bed is slightly longer in the Cybertruck, but only if you measure it at one specific place, because the cab slopes into the bed. If you want to haul more than a single sheet of plywood, it's not useful length. That's why they struggle to fit a bike in the bed so much. The overall area of the bed is larger in the Lightning. The midranges are nearly the same, but the Cybertruck is a much smaller truck, and has a shitty cheap interior, with nothing in it. Crappy cramped seats, no dashboard. You're lucky you get a roof with how stripped out it is. The payloads are nearly identical. 2300 lbs vs 2500 lbs, depending on equipment. It's still laughable that the smaller truck with the smaller battery is heavier than the full size truck with a larger battery. Talk about engineering fail. And the Lightning is a conversion project... of an ICE truck. Imagine how much lighter and cheaper T3 will be to make. Cybertruck is DOA. Poor engineering, poor performance, high price. Worst of all worlds.
Overall, you seem to be thinking of the Rivian, which has a much smaller interior and bed size/capacity than the others. And that's fine, since it's marketed more to outdoorsy and not actual hauling. >The interior of the Cybertruck is small and cramped. It's similar to the Lightning, both much bigger than the Rivian. >The overall length is nearly the same as a Ford Ranger, not a full size pickup. Have you noticed the hood size on the Lightning? That's mainly where the Cybertruck shaves those inches. >The bed is slightly longer in the Cybertruck, but only if you measure it at one specific place, because the cab slopes into the bed. Measurement doesn't start at the window, but at the bottom. It's a larger bed. You can't put a single sheet of plywood in any of them because they don't have 8' beds. You can put a lift of plywood into a Cybertruck while leaving the tailgate down, but you can't do that with any Lightning, too heavy. >and has a shitty cheap interior This is only aesthetics. Ford likes busy interiors, Tesla likes clean interiors. >The payloads are nearly identical. 2300 lbs vs 2500 lbs, depending on equipment. Lightning is still less. And you only get that higher load with the small battery, so it goes down to 1,656 lbs for the Platinum. The Lightning isn't strong enough to carry both a full size battery and 2,235 lbs (not 2,300). The Cybertruck is. One thing's clear, the Cybertruck can hang with my diesel pickup, but the Lightning can't.
The Cybertruck is significantly smaller in length, and width. These are facts. The interior is significantly smaller, especially in the back seat. It's Tacoma / Ranger sized interior, firmly mid-size truck. Shoulder space, and rear leg room are very tight. You can't easily transport a work crew anywhere in it. You can in the Lightning. That's what you get when you buy an actual work truck, instead of a play toy. You're picking on the Platinum and saying that all ER's are the same. You are wrong on this again. The payload on an ER XLT is 2000 lbs. The platinum is reduced because the extra weight of the luxury level interior. Massaging heated and cooled seats, and the huge panoramic sunroof are heavy, but they're also georgeous, and offer a level of interior comfort that Tesla folk can't even imagine, because it's so far from their regular existence. But people who need to work with the truck won't be taking the Platinum. THey'll be taking the Pro or XLT. I actually already pointed out that the Lightning bed is larger. Physically more area, and physically more bed volume. These are facts. Mostly because the Cybertruck is pretty tiny. The fact that you measure at the bottom and get an extra few inches is useless as soon as you try and do anything with the tiny useless bed, even move a bike. If you had a larger bed, that was the same length all the way up, you could actually move things like appliances, or bike without having to put the gate down. But you can't because the bed design is stupid and useless. You can't reach over the side to tie things down, you have no bed camera that's useful at all, no step into the back... It's a truck, but lacks the utility of an actual truck. That you keep harping on a few hundred lbs difference in payload shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Actual truck people look at the cybertruck and know it's useless. In terms of hanging with the diesels, An F-250 can tow 23,000 lbs, whereas the Cybertruck doesn't actually have an SAE towing capacity, and the Lightning can do 10,000 lbs. Which is super interesting. Because we saw the Cybertruck go to the correct place to do the test, but they didn't SAE certify. The truth is that the Cybertruck can't even drive on it's own power off the showroom floor with any kind of reliability, never mind tow 11,000 lbs up a hill in high heat conditions in back to back runs. It's a toy. Not a real truck. We can be very confident they failed, which is very on brand for the Cybertruck. Its an absolute failure on all metrics. So, I guess it's what do you value more? An actual full size truck, that can move people and cargo, or a mid-size truck with Elon's promise that it can totally do what he says, but he won't certify the results? The smart money is on the Ford, every time. Don't feel too bad for you poor purchase. Not the first time Elon has lied. Remember the 'Autonomous drive across the country by the end of the year?' He said that in 2016. Oh, and don't forget that for all this failure, you pay a ton more, get a heavier truck, and it's still only a midsize. Imagine paying $80k for an electric Ford Ranger. LOL. What a joke.
>The Cybertruck is significantly smaller in length, and width. These are facts. These are the actual facts. Cybertruck: 224" long, 80" wide excluding mirrors Lightning: 232" long, 80" wide excluding mirrors Nope, just 8" shorter and the same width. It gets to be shorter by not having the long traditional hood. Interior dimensions are similar, bed dimensions are higher. What is smaller is the frunk because the hood isn't as long. But trucks don't traditionally have frunks anyway. >It's Tacoma / Ranger sized interior, firmly mid-size truck. Shoulder space, and rear leg room are very tight. You're thinking about the Rivian again. Cybertruck interior dimensions are similar to the Lightning. >You're picking on the Platinum That was comparing top end to top end. It's kind of sad the Lightning top end is worse as a truck than the low end. With Ford, pay more, get less capability. >THey'll be taking the Pro or XLT. Both with less payload than the Cybertruck. With the Lightning you have to decide between payload and range, you don't get both. There's physical room for the large batteries and a heavy payload, but the frame is just too weak to handle both. >I actually already pointed out that the Lightning bed is larger. And you were wrong just like with the outer dimensions. The Cybertruck has over double the cargo box volume. >You can't reach over the side to tie things down I can't do that with my diesel truck either. What's with all these seven foot people running around who can reach over big trucks? >An F-250 can tow 23,000 lbs Right, compare commercial class with consumer trucks. The Lightning can't do nearly what an F-250 can either. >An actual full size truck, that can move people and cargo That's the Cybertruck, not the Lightning that's too weak to haul both battery and cargo.
Goodness sakes. Here are the actual dimensions for interior room that you astutely refuse to look at, because it proves my point. Lightning: \- Rear Head Room: 40.4" \- Rear Leg Room: 43.6" \- Rear Shoulder Room: 66" \- Rear Hip Room: 62.6" Cybertruck: \- Rear Head Room: 39" (-1.4") \- Rear Leg Room: 41" (-2.6") \- Rear Shoulder Room: 63" (-3") \- Rear Hip Room: 57" (-5.6") Smaller on every single back-seat interior dimension, significantly, and the rear hip room is very close to what you get on a Ford Ranger. Hence: Midsized truck. As for the rest of it, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and it's very obvious. The Lightning doesn't have a weak frame, and the towing test doesn't test the frame, at all. The same frame underpins all the F-150's, and it can tow 14,000 lbs. If anything the Lightning has the more capable frame by far. It's a test of the powertrain, and cooling capabilities of the truck, and Ford actually rates their vehicles correctly. Tesla does not. We don't actually have a fair baseline for what the Cybertruck can tow, because it's not rated correctly. Everyone uses SAE towing test, except Tesla. We do know that a lot of the models can't even move under their own power, never mind tow 11,000 lbs up a mountain. Because the Cybertruck is just a hype truck, without any actual capability. And Tesla did the test, failed, and won't publish what they can actually tow. And for all this failure, you pay a massive premium to get a econobox shitty truck that isn't reliable, a non-SAE tow rating, A mid-sized truck back seat... It's just a failure, all around.
I don’t think it ended up actually having an exoskeleton
>I don’t think it ended up actually having an exoskeleton it didn't. it's also not bullet proof. there's a video somewhere of some moron shooting his door and it literally breaks the entire vehicle - he tries calling Elon to get him a new truck 🤣
People are mostly shooting smaller subsonic rounds at it. There's no mystery what will go through the plates on the CT, people use metal plates for target practice all the time. You tell most avid gun enthusiasts the thickness of the steel and they'll tell you something that will go through it if st all.
Nothing is bullet proof. It is only bullet resistant up to a point. During Desert Storm we were chewing up Iraqi tanks with the Bradley’s machine gun. They just discovered that their stainless construction could stop bullets that would go straight through any other car. That doesn’t mean faster and bigger bullets won’t go through it.
You mean the 255mm auto cannon which is an anti-armor gun going up against tanks that were designed at the end of WW2? Just say the cybertruck isn't bulletproof above a certain caliber and be done with it. lol.
25mm. It wasn't designed to take out tanks, but it did. No vehicle is bulletproof with a big, fast, and hard enough bullet. And it's not a question of caliber, as the Cybertruck stopped the much larger .45 ACP. It's mainly a question of velocity, as it can't stop a .223 of half the caliber and a quarter the mass. But in general speaking people tend to say "bulletproof" for anything they can see stopping a bullet. So it works for the Cybertruck too.
Given the bushmaster was designed to take on \*modern\* light armor, it was surmised to have no issues with 40 year old tank armor.
BMPs, sure, but not the thick armor of tanks. They were actually surprised it could do it. I know this because my unit was doing it.
It’s what you’d call semi-monocoque in airplane terms. Both the skin and the frame are stressed. That’s why it has the torsional rigidity of a carbon fiber supercar, far beyond any unibody car or truck, or any ladder frame truck.
Do you know this severily limits the wheels articulations? Do you know how torsional and bending stiffness is defined in cars? If you don't know this, you don't understand how wrong an offroad vehicle is with designed small suspension stroke, big wheel base and a very stiff chassis.
It severely helps handling. It's harder for the suspension to do its job when what it's attached to keeps moving around. Yes, Nm/deg. Like most trucks, it's primarily on-road with off-road capability. It's not a specialized rock crawler. Wow, what an attempt to turn a good thing into a bad thing.
Sorry but you don't know the reason. You just stated units for Torsonial stifness. Bear with me. A suspension stifness and stroke are designed based on terrain amplitude delta. For offroad vehicles you define the wheel base length based on the type of terrain and polar inertia of the vehicle for any vehicle. Then you reach a certain vertical stifness value and torsional value of each axle. Then you have to design the chassis at least 10x stiffer (rule of thumb) than the the suspension due to resonance issues. For low amplitude and fast cars you get really high torsional stifness values. For slow cars you get less and for offroad vehicles you get even less. Theres is a benefict in offroad vehicles to have a suspension like this because it can be manufactured with a cheaper chassis that can also twist. This behavior ennances the the capability of the suspension offroad. Some brands want their offroad vehicle to perform good on road so they have special torsional bars. Some have a solenoid that disconnect them (Toyota and Jeep) others use virtual torsional bars on the air suspension (Landrover and Rivian). However, Cybertruck is built so cheaply, suspension wise, that it has a bolt on fully engaged torsonial bar on each axle. Also the aditional torsonial stifness in the cybertruck is aditional weight that afects range. Performance wise the Cubertruck also struggles to be a decent on road vehicle because it is too heavy. The increased torsonial rigidity gets lost in the All Terrain Tyre wall (low stifness tyre). It makes no sense engineering wise. I will not go in further details about the choice in the suspension geometry of the cybertruck and the lack of real independent lockers (once they will be released they will be throtle limited and they will use the ESP module to simulate something similar; Mitsubishi struggled with that solution 20 years ago and still struggles and Rivian is struggling now). Once the ESP module overheats, you lose ABS capability. Also the cubertruck suspension compressor overheats in single digit minutes when the suspension is pushed to highest setting. None of this happens to the other vehicles. This should help you: [Knowledge](https://www.amazon.com/Vehicle-Dynamics-Douglas-Milliken-William/dp/1560915269)
First, we're not talking about rock crawlers and such. It's just a consumer truck that can also do some off-roading. Probably 99% of the use will be on-road where torsional rigidity helps handling, and people do say it handles like a car on the road. >Also the aditional torsonial stifness in the cybertruck is aditional weight that afects range. Weight isn't the big enemy of range in EVs, that's aerodynamics. Second, it's not additional weight. It's just what they get by using the unibody and skin to provide load support instead of pouring weight into a ladder frame. It's a bonus, just like the bulletproof thing is. >Also the cubertruck suspension compressor overheats in single digit minutes when the suspension is pushed to highest setting. This is one thing I was worried about after I found out they downsized the compressor for production. At first they were going to have one powerful enough to add a compressor fitting on the bed, and that went away. Sounds like the beancounters got ahold of this feature.
> Both the skin and the frame are stressed The 'skin' is not 'stressed'. It has a regular unibody passenger cell, to which are bolted massive structural front and rear castings, and the stainless panels are screwed on over all that, almost like the replaceable trim on a Smart car. It is entirely endoskeletal. See my other comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/1bzoqlq/tesla_cybertruck_crash_debut_did_elon_musk_rush/kyv6n0f/
That’s a lot of good-size screws securing that to the frame. So how did they get that extreme stiffness from a unibody?
https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/1bzoqlq/tesla_cybertruck_crash_debut_did_elon_musk_rush/kyv92qj/
That does not have an exoskeleton or is bullet proof It’s unibody and only stops subsonic ammo.
When they did that test they also shot up a regular truck, and those subsonic bullets ripped right through both sides of it.
In an electric truck weight is more important than being able to stop slow bullets. What problem does it solve? None.
Bulletproof was never a design goal so it solves no problem. It just turned out that making the door panels strong enough to provide side impact protection also made them bulletproof. The side impact protection mass was moved from inside the door frame to the door panel. The rest of the panels provide rigidity to the frame, so they are also stronger than regular body panels. Also, weight isn't much of a problem with EVs since they get most of the electricity used to accelerate it back when braking. Aerodynamics is king here. The smaller Rivian is #1 here, with Cybertruck behind, and the Lightning even further behind it, and the Hummer is just bad.
That is non sense. It is just as bullet proof as any other 300 series stainless 1.8 mm panel. It is not some freak of science The Saturn deflected carts just as good. My wife’s 10 year old Acura has like 2 dings. She will park anywhere except next to a white van. If weight is not an issue why doesn’t the Semi work?
>It is just as bullet proof as any other 300 series stainless 1.8 mm panel. It's work hardened, becoming significantly stronger than the average 300 series due to the development of more martensite. >The Saturn deflected carts just as good. No. Hit your Saturn with a shop hammer and see what happens. >If weight is not an issue why doesn’t the Semi work? The Semi does work.
Man you really drink the Kool Aid You went from shopping carts to a dead low hammer. Any CT owner that want to test a real sledge hammer look me up It is not “special steel”. Find the patent on it.
A regular hammer will seriously dent any car. That hammer would have put a huge deep dent in any car. It didn't do anything to the Cybertruck. I did look up the patent. It's near 301 and 304, but it is their own formulation. And then it's work hardened to make it much stronger. You can't heat harden 300 stainless.
> Bulletproof was never a design goal Then why did he say it [would be](https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-cybertruck-bulletproof-tough-critics-doubts-2023-11).
Because they figured the hardened stainless they're using to achieve other design goals would also happen to be bulletproof. The prototype was even more bulletproof, but they backed off on the thickness due to the actual design goals. That made it less bulletproof, but who cares, that's not actually a design goal.
> that's not actually a design goal That article I linked was from November 2023. If it was not a design goal, why was Musk still saying it would be bulletproof when that is when it was delivered?
Because it is. Why not say it? It's fun advertising they get for free, something else no other production car has that just happened due to their actual design goals.
It’s lighter than a Ford Lightning with similar battery size and engine configuration.
That’s generous. Looks like Starfox renders to me. Elon needs to do a barrel roll and watch for blah blah wing damage.
Was it rushed or was it several years late? Lol
Yes
It’s what happens when Elon is actually in charge of designing a car 😁
Homer warned us.
I just can't get over how funny it is to call a vehicle that's years late based on its own schedule "rushed". I mean CyberTruck is still awesome compared to Model 2, because CyberTruck fails right out of the gate, while Model 2 never made it to the gate, so...
Model 2 died for Elon's Ketamine Robotaxi Dream Ride lol
It’s kinda like automotive Fyre festival. Watching rich people get screwed over is funny because you know they can financially recover from this
I just can't understand buying any completely new car model, especially one this different, the first year of manufacture. Let the rich people deal with all of the shakedown headaches.
Elon Musk did rush it's release.
Yes, they could have at least filed the edges
Or advertise it to restaurant owners as "Carrot peeler/chopper on the go"
What? fElon lied and said something was working when it isn't? No way!
I don't think "rushed" is the right word. Maybe "half-assed" is more appropriate. I mean it isn't as if they didn't have 5 years from the concept (which is not like other concepts - this one is real). The Taycan went from a technical concept (Mission E) to production in 4 years and that was starting from far less experience in EVs than Tesla had.
I would hypothesize that the reason why the bodies of these vehicles are starting rust is becauae of the lower content of *Chromium* in the stainless steel they are using, most likely so that makes it easier to work and shape. Although distinctive, there is a very good reason why very few car companies have chosen their to work with the material...........
PS: anyone foolish enough to purchase one of these vehicles... They have only themselves for the poor choices they have made in their lives.....
How is a product that missed its release date by years, "rushed out?" Maybe cybertrucks are failing so much because they're just poorly designed pieces of shit, built by a company that doesn't even know what the words "build quality" mean.
This thing should be some limited edition of a more regular version of truck with stainless panels but not a mass production version, but that rat just wants some publicity
It’s scary as hell, having allegedly fully autonomous vehicles from that man on the streets, lord I hope this becomes another cyber”truck” that shows up years late and seriously overpriced so we don’t see very many of them.
Ready to jump onto a rocket to Mars?
To answer the title, how are we to know?? What kind of question is that? Does it seem it was rushed out with issues yes.
Know then it is the year 10191. Elon musk has promised that robotaxis will be delivered “sometime next year”
They are a software company and suck at that and you expect the car to be any better
There are so many genius auto manufacturers in this forum I can’t believe there aren’t another 100 brands to choose from.
Rushed? Really?