Tesla Unveils Radical Cybertruck.

Hate to tell you they usually pick the cheapest components as possible. They tend to keep a eye at 7 years anything beyond that they figure is to costly, they also expect a 15% failure rate before 7 years.

So what you're telling me is that the cameras will most likely fail at the same time as all the other electronics jammed into cars nowadays will likely fail. Good to know.

Those cameras were probably built with "old school cameras" whereas the car cameras are probably more along the lines of the current brand of chip based cameras in terms of quality. And I can say the current chip based cameras do not last that long. My personal experience with security cameras from several manufacturers is 3-5 years. Ive had as little as 1 year from a FossCam.

Might be true, the ones that have lasted 15 years were analog cameras. That said, we got bottom barrel Chinese IP cameras about 9 years ago and they're still going strong.
 
What issue? You don't seem to understand them. They are not exposed to the elements, they're sealed and behind a casing. There's nothing to clean.


A side mirror is also useless in low light and darkness other than for annoying headlights. Cameras can see a whole lot more.

Physical mirrors will also not do anything to help record and document anything, like vandalism to your car. Extra cameras will.

As for mirrors "never failing" I wish that were the case - the driver-side on my car has turned dark orange and crystallized with weird fractal patterns, and a valet told me "I see a lot of this car with that mirror problem".

Sorry grandpa but our camera sideviews are coming.

Mind your manners. I didn't insult you there's no need to be childish.

Casings get dirty, they leak. Etc. But doesn't matter what I say you won't care. Excuse me for having an opinion and wanting to keep a reliable backup system in place.

So what you're telling me is that the cameras will most likely fail at the same time as all the other electronics jammed into cars nowadays will likely fail. Good to know.



Might be true, the ones that have lasted 15 years were analog cameras. That said, we got bottom barrel Chinese IP cameras about 9 years ago and they're still going strong.

Maybe I have had bad luck with them? All of my cameras are outside so maybe local weather is harsher where I am than where you are.


I still think its reasonable to keep a sideview as a backup. Putting in cameras is fine but removing the mirror and telling people they dont have to check visually is a bad idea imo.
 
Putting in cameras is fine but removing the mirror and telling people they dont have to check visually is a bad idea imo.

Switching the mirror to a camera and screen, isn't telling people they don't have to check visually, it's just telling people to visually check in different place.

That different place will be have a better fields of view, and won't be subject to incorrect setup, or getting bashed out of alignment, and will have the additional benefits of reducing aero drag.
 
Switching the mirror to a camera and screen, isn't telling people they don't have to check visually, it's just telling people to visually check in different place.

That different place will be have a better fields of view, and won't be subject to incorrect setup, or getting bashed out of alignment, and will have the additional benefits of reducing aero drag.

And it wouldn't have blind spots either. As it is now with traditional mirrors, you still have to turn your head to check blind spots unless you have a blind spot mirror. If it goes out, it wouldn't be much different than turning your head to check blind spots before changing lanes.
 
There's nothing to clean.

You know that clear plastic that's in front of the lens? That's what he was talking about. Hard for the camera to record through mud.

Yeah, mirror glass has the same issue, although it's really obvious where that is, if you need to clean it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
You know that clear plastic that's in front of the lens? That's what he was talking about. Hard for the camera to record through mud.

Yeah, mirror glass has the same issue, although it's really obvious where that is, if you need to clean it.

That clear plastic is probably polycarbonate and is definitely going to turn yellow and fog up within a few years, depending on how it's driven/parked. I'd also image it would get quite a few burn marks in the CCD from concentrated sun rays off of chrome bumpers and shiny paint from other vehicles.
 
A good side mirror will last longer than the car itself and will never fail unless physically hit. I would wonder what the service life of a always on camera is. Plus there's the issue of the camera getting dirty. Half the people I know that own Teslas dont know where the cameras are to clean them (they aren't hard to spot) but they all know where side mirrors are. Oh and in an electrical failure the camera doesn't work but the side mirror would.

I am all for progress usually but I am not sure removing side mirrors is a good thing just yet. Besides they can engineer mirrors that would minimize the drag.

The cameras have no moving parts and are built to high reliability and durability as they are also used for autopilot. They will be far more reliable tha a mirror sticking out with motors and glass lol.
 
With combusion engines yes, EVs are the other way around with worse range on freeways due to drag. Tesla claim an 11% increase in range by just ditching the side mirrors.

Yea, gotta love the people that leave their roof cages on their SUV's year round. I guess gas is cheap now
 
The cameras have no moving parts and are built to high reliability and durability as they are also used for autopilot. They will be far more reliable tha a mirror sticking out with motors and glass lol.

There's zero data backing this up... zero. If you could get a hold of consumer reports database however, i suspect there's ample data to the contrary.
 
There's zero data backing this up... zero. If you could get a hold of consumer reports database however, i suspect there's ample data to the contrary.

My last 3 cars have had factory reverse cameras and are not a safety feature so not built to a high standard. None have ever failed.

Meanwhile I have had motors fail on 2 mirrors and 1 smashed off completely leaving me with nothing. An 11% improvement in efficiency is very significant for just removing mirrors. You will have improved visibility with camera systems.
 
With combusion engines yes, EVs are the other way around with worse range on freeways due to drag. Tesla claim an 11% increase in range by just ditching the side mirrors.

Just wanted to say you want to keep in mind not everywhere is perfectly flat so those grades really hurt with that added weight. Also I think Tesla is stretching it a bit with 11% gain in range but aero was not my specialty when I worked at Chrysler.
 
My last 3 cars have had factory reverse cameras and are not a safety feature so not built to a high standard. None have ever failed.

Meanwhile I have had motors fail on 2 mirrors and 1 smashed off completely leaving me with nothing. An 11% improvement in efficiency is very significant for just removing mirrors. You will have improved visibility with camera systems.

Your mirror spontaneously smashed itself off? I'd like to get specifics on that, as well as area 51 folks. Btw, inherent to design, the motors in your mirror do not prevent it from functioning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
My last 3 cars have had factory reverse cameras and are not a safety feature so not built to a high standard. None have ever failed.

Meanwhile I have had motors fail on 2 mirrors and 1 smashed off completely leaving me with nothing. An 11% improvement in efficiency is very significant for just removing mirrors. You will have improved visibility with camera systems.
My co-worker just left Ford last year, and he said the way they design the motorized foldable mirrors is retarded. Instead of using limit switches to detect when the mirror is folded in or out for motor cutoff, they use locked rotor sensing back at the control module that reads the current draw. It burns out the motor and is only good for a few thousand cycles, if that. :ROFLMAO: Most of the time they get stuck folded in when they fail. Adding limit switches would require an extra wire or two in the harness, and limit switches cost extra. Anything to shave a few pennies.
 
Last edited:
My co-worker just left Ford last year, and he said the way they design the motorized foldable mirrors is retarded. Instead of using limit switches to detect when the mirror is folded in or out for motor cutoff, they use locked rotor sensing back at the control module that reads the current draw. It burns out the motor and is only good for a few thousand cycles, if that. :ROFLMAO: Most of the time they get stuck folded in when they fail. Adding limit switches would require an extra wire or two in the harness, and limit switches cost extra. Anything to shave a few pennies.

Funny you say that because Mercedes does the exact same thing on their power folding mirrors. At least in the mid-2000s to early 2010s.
 
Trying to get this derailed thread back on the tracks, I've always thought it is wonderful how Tesla is making a serious attempt at an EV. I'm not going to say they're the best car out there (they aren't) but think of the technology they've developed when nobody else has.

And as far as creating an EV over gas counterpart, well why not? If the product is good enough at the right price.... eventually.... there's going to be a lot of people lined up to buy them. If they can't get it to work, they'll just go under.

My concerns are sustainability and of course the ever important range. I commute and hour each way to work on the highway and I live in Canada. It gets cold here sometimes. For that reason and the cost it's not for me just yet. I'm hoping that it will be in the future.

As far as sustainability, we're building EVs for two reasons: cheaper fuel and the environment. Well...those lithium batteries aren't exactly clean to make or recycle. Mining is always dirty. And then there's the problem of supply. Only so much materials to go around.

I did like the Toyota approach. Was in the news while back, their CEO was mouthing off about how he wanted to hybridize their entire lineup. At least according to him, one plug in hybrid puts out 30% less pollution on average but the materials to build one EV could build 10 hybrids. Maybe that's a better idea until we get a better battery? Maybe batteries aren't the route in the future after all....

Either way, I like developing more tech. We get better stuff for less.

Hybrids from Toyota are BS simply implemented so they can cheat emissions and not design new engines. The emissions cycle is conducted with a full battery and does not represent real world usage of the vehicle having to lug around the extra weight and recharging it. They don’t even have direct injection as a result.

As for Lithium, well the whole life cycle of an EV is still far more efficient and most of the technology can move across as battery tech changes.
 
My co-worker just left Ford last year, and he said the way they design the motorized foldable mirrors is retarded. Instead of using limit switches to detect when the mirror is folded in or out for motor cutoff, they use locked rotor sensing back at the control module that reads the current draw. It burns out the motor and is only good for a few thousand cycles, if that. :ROFLMAO: Most of the time they get stuck folded in when they fail. Adding limit switches would require an extra wire or two in the harness, and limit switches cost extra. Anything to shave a few pennies.
You may not realize but this is how most cars detect the windows up/down as well... It's a very normal design proven reliable. I would guess as reliable as most cheap limit switches with extra wiring, but no real data. If they are having reliability issues, it's their implementation that's crap. A DC motor running at very low load while moving then hits a very short stall period b fore being shut off is not going to cause the motor to burn up. Only if it is stalled for a long time at high current can it heat up enough to cause any damage. Every since time a DC motor is turned on it sees maximum current (stall current). It's not bad for the motor or coils as they are designed for it. Now the amount of time necessary to stall a motor and run at max current is variable based on many factors (including heat dissipation and epoxy used to hold internal wiring). The choice to NOT use more mechanical parts and the electronics to control was not just for $$$ savings but most likely reliability. As I said, if their system isn't working well it's their implementation that sucks. This system has been used reliably for decades in other ways and means gen by other companies (Mercedes example above) with high reliability. Just because he worked there do any make him an expert on all aspects of design. Neither am I, but at least you can easily see for yourself the reliability in other vehicles as comparison.
 
I'm just going by what my coworker saw in the Ford R&D facilities on Rotunda. He's an excellent engineer, a PE in Electrical and Computer Engineering as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
And it wouldn't have blind spots either. As it is now with traditional mirrors, you still have to turn your head to check blind spots unless you have a blind spot mirror. If it goes out, it wouldn't be much different than turning your head to check blind spots before changing lanes.
This is the annoying part. Government requires a side view mirror to be flat. Some trucks have an additional curved mirror I order to avoid blindspots, but the main mirror has to be flat. This is the reason for blindspots, not the fact that it's a mirror. Camera will have a different FOV, a mirror could to if it was legal. Passenger mirrors are allowed a very small curve as long as they state "objects in mirror are closer than they appear". I guess the worry is if the mirror curve throws off your perception you may think you have room to merge when you don't. I assume it side view mirrors got replaced, the camera would have to follow the same rules for vision as the mechanical parts, but it's the government so making sense and being consistent was never their M.O.
 
I'm just going by what my coworker saw in the Ford R&D facilities on Rotunda. He's an excellent engineer, a PE in Electrical and Computer Engineering as well.
Understood, I'm just giving another point of view and pointing out there is plenty of reference data available. I don't doubt your friends intelligent, but until you actually test it and find the right hardware, it's easy to think an idea is better, but without testing and validation, it's just an unproven idea that may or may not be better or worse. I have no doubts the method would work, just doubts that it would be a noticeable improvement for the cost (which is what all manufacturers go by).
 
This is the annoying part. Government requires a side view mirror to be flat. Some trucks have an additional curved mirror I order to avoid blindspots, but the main mirror has to be flat. This is the reason for blindspots, not the fact that it's a mirror. Camera will have a different FOV, a mirror could to if it was legal. Passenger mirrors are allowed a very small curve as long as they state "objects in mirror are closer than they appear". I guess the worry is if the mirror curve throws off your perception you may think you have room to merge when you don't. I assume it side view mirrors got replaced, the camera would have to follow the same rules for vision as the mechanical parts, but it's the government so making sense and being consistent was never their M.O.

I have a tip for you: The government never will make sense or be consistent. Having worked in government for over a decade I feel confident saying this. IMO the absolute LAST thing you want is government involvement because invariably it gets fucked up and worse for everyone.

The problem with judging distance and cameras is that people seem to have issues judging the distances (moreso than a mirror it seems). Thats why the reverse lines got added to backup cams. I know the goal isn't to eliminate head turning here but judging from what I have seen Tesla drivers do on the road (including some Ive been in while they did it) it does have that effect. Now for those individuals on the road I dont know what their rate of checking prior was - I certainly hope they did. But for the times Ive chewed someone out for it they sheepishly admitted they thought the camera and distance sensor was sufficient that they didn't have to look.
 
I have a tip for you: The government never will make sense or be consistent. Having worked in government for over a decade I feel confident saying this. IMO the absolute LAST thing you want is government involvement because invariably it gets fucked up and worse for everyone.

The problem with judging distance and cameras is that people seem to have issues judging the distances (moreso than a mirror it seems). Thats why the reverse lines got added to backup cams. I know the goal isn't to eliminate head turning here but judging from what I have seen Tesla drivers do on the road (including some Ive been in while they did it) it does have that effect. Now for those individuals on the road I dont know what their rate of checking prior was - I certainly hope they did. But for the times Ive chewed someone out for it they sheepishly admitted they thought the camera and distance sensor was sufficient that they didn't have to look.
I didn't say I wanted it, I am just saying it's already there... And I would imagine any replacement technology would still have to follow the same regulations.
 
This is the annoying part. Government requires a side view mirror to be flat. Some trucks have an additional curved mirror I order to avoid blindspots, but the main mirror has to be flat. This is the reason for blindspots, not the fact that it's a mirror. Camera will have a different FOV, a mirror could to if it was legal. Passenger mirrors are allowed a very small curve as long as they state "objects in mirror are closer than they appear". I guess the worry is if the mirror curve throws off your perception you may think you have room to merge when you don't. I assume it side view mirrors got replaced, the camera would have to follow the same rules for vision as the mechanical parts, but it's the government so making sense and being consistent was never their M.O.

Most people have their mirrors angled like morons. You have a rear view mirror to see directly behind you.
 
Most people have their mirrors angled like morons. You have a rear view mirror to see directly behind you.
This has not been my experience. Most people have all 3 mirrors adjusted to provide sight behind them. Most people leave the side mirrors to provide just a bit of the side of their car, but mostly providing a view of the lane next to them.

Been a mechanic for nearly 20yrs, I have been in a lot of cars.
 
It's the percentage that matters. 28% reduction in what represents 50% or more of the load will result in a 14%+ gain in fuel economy. Squeezing that much more out of modern gas engines isn't really possible. Nothing really has as big an opportunity to produce these kind of benefits. Though Aero only helps at freeway speed. Stop and go pushes other factors back up.




Weight is important in stop and go, as you waste power overcoming the greater inertia (and you can't recover it all with regen).

For highway trips, Aero trumps all.

Excellent Aero is actually a big reason why the Prius gets excellent highway MPG, when the hybrid system is doing essentially nothing.

You could rip out the batteries and hybrid components, and connect the Prius engine to a Manual transmission and get about the same MPG, because at highway speed, it's simply the aerodynamics that has the largest impact.

It's why the original Honda Insight went so far as to add rear wheel skirts. This car got 60+ MPG on the highway where the mild hybrid system was essentially off. You could throw away the Hybrid system and it would still get 60+ MPG:
View attachment 249708

Any serious attempt to improve fuel economy, attacks it from all angles: Weight, Aero, Engine efficiency, parasitic losses.


My buddy had one these and holy heck did it get awesome mpg. He lived in a small city, so it wasn’t bad there, but I would never own one doing the 120 mile commute I do every day. I think that thing got close to 70mpg.
 
Tesla recently revealed pricing details for the Cybertruck, with the all-wheel drive version starting at $79,990 with a 340 mile range and 600 hp, among other specifications...the top-of-the-line Cyberbeast version starts at $99,990 and includes a tri-motor setup capable of 845 hp and 320 miles of range...Tesla claims both of these versions will deliver starting in 2024

I don't understand the appeal of this at all...it looks like something out of Mad Max

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-stock-slides-after-cybertruck-launch-154752957.html
 
Tesla recently revealed pricing details for the Cybertruck, with the all-wheel drive version starting at $79,990 with a 340 mile range and 600 hp, among other specifications...the top-of-the-line Cyberbeast version starts at $99,990 and includes a tri-motor setup capable of 845 hp and 320 miles of range...Tesla claims both of these versions will deliver starting in 2024

I don't understand the appeal of this at all...it looks like something out of Mad Max

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-stock-slides-after-cybertruck-launch-154752957.html
It's for a very particular buyer that likes its styling and either loves Tesla and/or its stats, and/or is okay with the tradeoffs of using it like a pickup vs other pickups.

It's kind of hard to argue for the Tesla for practical reasons in comparison to the Ford F150 Lightning, which the Cybertruck is directly getting compared to. Though the F150 Lightning has its own efficiency and stuff to figure out, it still looks and drives like a "normal truck" comparatively. And perhaps that is why Tesla has a different customer base... because I presume they don't care if it looks or works like a "standard Ford".

The price though is double what Tesla originally said, and that also will turn off a lot of would-be buyers.
Frankly I'm waaaaay more interested in Toyota's new Land Cruiser announcement. It's way less money and using Toyota's great hybrid systems, which for me in 2023 is still a better option than pure electric. Much less power yes, but also much more practical. While also still being a cool truck with great fuel efficiency.

EDIT: It also is fair to call the Land Cruiser a truck as it is built on Toyota's truck platform which includes the Tundra. Though obviously it doesn't have a bed, so it is also still fair to call it a different class of vehicle.
 
Last edited:
It's for a very particular buyer that likes its styling and either loves Tesla and/or its stats, and/or is okay with the tradeoffs of using it like a pickup vs other pickups.

It's kind of hard to argue for the Tesla for practical reasons in comparison to the Ford F150 Lightning, which the Cybertruck is directly getting compared to. Though the F150 Lightning has its own efficiency and stuff to figure out, it still looks and drives like a "normal truck" comparatively. And perhaps that is why Tesla has a different customer base... because I presume they don't care if it looks or works like a "standard Ford".

The price though is double what Tesla originally said, and that also will turn off a lot of would-be buyers.
Frankly I'm waaaaay more interested in Toyota's new LandCruiser announcement. It's way less money and using Toyota's great hybrid systems, which for me in 2023 is still a better option than pure electric. Much less power yes, but also much more practical. While also still being a cool truck with great fuel efficiency.

That says mid-50 range... The base Cybertruck isn't 100k last I looked.
 
That says mid-50 range... The base Cybertruck isn't 100k last I looked.
It is in top spec.

It's $60k to start with 2wd, $80k if you want 3 motor 4wd, and $100k if you want the full blown "CyberBeast" Cybertruck.

Tesla on their site tries to get around their price by placing an asterisk, adding a "$10k discount" and crossing your fingers that you won't notice:
*Prices assume IRA Federal Tax Credits up to $7,500 for Rear-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive and est. gas savings of $3,600 over 3 years.
See Details


You can click here and see the "Purchase Price" and "Probable Savings" tab at the top on Tesla's own site.
https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck/design#payment

Here's all the info for the lazy in video form for anyone interested:

View: https://youtu.be/XxOh12Uhg08?si=mhW-idecmqFklzrv




Meanwhile, the Ford F150 Lightning starts at $52k. Which sounds like a steal unless you're a mega Tesla fan.
https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/f-150-lightning
 
It's for a very particular buyer that likes its styling and either loves Tesla and/or its stats, and/or is okay with the tradeoffs of using it like a pickup vs other pickups.

Honestly, I think it has a lot to do with so called "virtue signaling". The styling is intentionally abrasive. It's not pretty. It's not meant to be. it's mean to be noticed, so the driver can make a statement about driving electric.

That's the only sense I can make out of this rolling abortion of a vehicle.

I've always been the opposite.

I am interested in an electric car. I'd love to save money on gas. But I want it to look like a car I would like to drive, not like a mini-van, or some high seating position efficiency hatchback, or some stupid mini-SUV or some kind of UFO with ridiculous lights all over it.

Just give me the large sedan I have today, but electric.

- No need for "ludicrous" acceleration. Give me the same 0-60 in ~6-7 seconds I've had for decades.
- No need for self driving tech. I have it in my car today, and it is more annoying than it is worth, so I never use it.
- No need for "connected everything"
- No need for LCD or OLED screens everywhere, or touch screens. Give me honest to goodness tactile buttons.
- No need for a go-cart yoke instead of a steering wheel.
- No need for so called "luxury" features like self opening trunks that are going to fail and be stupidly expensive to repair.

Just give me a car with the aesthetic appeal and features of a 1990's Volvo sedan or wagon, but instead driven by a battery electric drivetrain.

Do this, and I'll buy one tomorrow.
 
Honestly, I think it has a lot to do with so called "virtue signaling". The styling is intentionally abrasive. It's not pretty. It's not meant to be. it's mean to be noticed, so the driver can make a statement about driving electric.

That's the only sense I can make out of this rolling abortion of a vehicle.

I've always been the opposite.

I am interested in an electric car. I'd love to save money on gas. But I want it to look like a car I would like to drive, not like a mini-van, or some high seating position efficiency hatchback, or some stupid mini-SUV or some kind of UFO with ridiculous lights all over it.
Everyone always has to make everything about politics and statements. Some people just want to buy an electric car that's fun. Some people just want to make an electric car that's fun. If the Cybertruck doesn't meet the "fun" definition for you, that's fine. But that also doesn't inherently make it some stupid political statement.

Frankly the people that assume both makers and buyers are doing everything for politics says more about the people saying that's the case than the makers/buyers. I am getting really annoyed by the same sorts of garbage statements about every piece of media/gaming too. As if there can be such a absurd assumption that everyone is uniform and they are all motivated by exactly the same things, which couldn't be further from the truth.
But I suppose the irony there is that that is what is politically convenient eh? Just treat everyone like they simply have the same ideology that you assign rather than have any nuance.
Just give me the large sedan I have today, but electric.

- No need for "ludicrous" acceleration. Give me the same 0-60 in ~6-7 seconds I've had for decades.
- No need for self driving tech. I have it in my car today, and it is more annoying than it is worth, so I never use it.
- No need for "connected everything"
- No need for LCD or OLED screens everywhere, or touch screens. Give me honest to goodness tactile buttons.
- No need for a go-cart yoke instead of a steering wheel.
- No need for so called "luxury" features like self opening trunks that are going to fail and be stupidly expensive to repair.

Just give me a car with the aesthetic appeal and features of a 1990's Volvo sedan or wagon, but instead driven by a battery electric drivetrain.

Do this, and I'll buy one tomorrow.
You fit into a category for me called: un-pleasable. There is nothing anyone can do to make a car that would satisfy you, and also you know, everyone else.
Just settle for never buying an electric car. Problem solved.
 
but that's a niche appeal...don't they want to mass market this?...I highly doubt the majority of people like the look of this
I dunno man, I think the Hummer H2 and H3 were two of the worst cars ever made from every standpoint, and yet in the 00's an absolutely dumb amount of them were sold.
I thought about it the other day and felt so good realizing I hadn't seen one in ages and that I was right about how dumb of a fad it was.

Not to say that the Cybertruck directly fits into that category, but I think there is definitely a demand for something that looks counter to everything else that already exists. If you want an electric that looks like a normal truck, you can already buy that (again, the Ford F150 Lightning or Rivian.). So Tesla has more to gain simply by being different rather than making a truck that looks like a regular truck.

It's like buying a Delorean when everything else looks like a Corolla.
 
You fit into a category for me called: un-pleasable. There is nothing anyone can do to make a car that would satisfy you, and also you know, everyone else.
Just settle for never buying an electric car. Problem solved.

I just explained exactly how to please me. It's not that difficult :p Just cut out all the extraneous bloat and stuff that is unnecessary and get back to making a car that is a car, regardless of which type of drivetrain it has. That's not rocket science.
 
I just explained exactly how to please me. It's not that difficult :p Just cut out all the extraneous bloat and stuff that is unnecessary and get back to making a car that is a car, regardless of which type of drivetrain it has. That's not rocket science.
And I'm saying it will never happen because literally every other consumer on the planet doesn't want that. If we made a Venn diagram, there would never be a set of circles that we could draw in which you would be in the overlapping center part. And you will never be pleased because you're unwilling to compromise in any way, shape, or form.

So again, simply settle for never buying an electric vehicle. Problem solved.
 
And I'm saying it will never happen because literally every other consumer on the planet doesn't want that. If we made a Venn diagram, there would never be a set of circles that we could draw in which you would be in the overlapping center part. And you will never be pleased because you're unwilling to compromise in any way, shape, or form.

So again, simply settle for never buying an electric vehicle. Problem solved.

I don't know man, I hear these same complaints uttered again and again.

I think the assumption that everyone wants what is trendy, is fundamentally flawed. Sure, a lot of people do, but I highly doubt it is the overwhelming majority you think it is, based on the constant complaints I see in car forums.
 
Honestly, I think it has a lot to do with so called "virtue signaling". The styling is intentionally abrasive. It's not pretty. It's not meant to be. it's mean to be noticed, so the driver can make a statement about driving electric.

That's the only sense I can make out of this rolling abortion of a vehicle.
A lot of the style is forced by material, that kind of ultra strong rolled steel that make the body cannot be bent easily or much, so it will have very angular shape and it because the very heavy outside is counterbalanced by being what give the vehicle its strength (to save some weight in exchange for being heavy steel on the outside) it will naturally have to be the closest it can be to a pyramid for regidity. Or at least that the story about it, how true it is about that spaceX alloy and the challenging of pressing it in a more regular shape....

It force that look, but you save weight on paint, promise of very long life time regarding rust or other issues and a list of advantage.
 
I don't know man, I hear these same complaints uttered again and again.

I think the assumption that everyone wants what is trendy, is fundamentally flawed. Sure, a lot of people do, but I highly doubt it is the overwhelming majority you think it is, based on the constant complaints I see in car forums.
Right now there are several electric car companies in the ring.

Tesla, BYD, Toyota, Rivian, Ford, and a few others. And none of them meet your specification. And I think it's also worth noting that they are all different.

Some of your complaints are literally why people buy these cars. Is Plaid mode necessary? No, but it also showcases the capabilities an electric motor has that standard ICE do not. To remove that feature that you have a problem with, would simply be removing capabilities the car inherently has behind a software lock.
But rather than you simply never using it, you must have a car without that feature.

Everyone at this point wants Android Auto and/or Carplay. This feature literally sells cars or leaves them stranded on lots (apparently more crucial than cup holders in Subarus). If anything people don't want the original navs from 10 years ago. But you don't want any form of connectivity or displays.

Most electric cars don't have yokes. Even the Cybertruck does not, it is a squared off wheel. However it's also designed with only a half rotation, meaning your hands never need to be removed from the wheel even to make a U-Turn. Watch the MKBHD video regarding that.

Most of the cars have some level of self opening or not. It's not really a ubiquitous feature. It's also not as if solenoids aren't well known tech.

Honestly I would say a bigger problem that is missing from your list is the looming threat of using software locks for features a car already has. There are many that realize Tesla is threatening to do this with more features.
 
90% of the sheep in this world buy cars for their looks and very little more. The people I've talked to that want this, like it for its being different more for the sake of its being different than anything else. Then there's the tiny si-fi crowd that have been jonesin for anything spacey for the last 20 years. I suppose it could be considered trendy or cool to some but the majority of people I've talked to about it have simply said it's ugly and it doesn't check any of the boxes for a truck owner, ICE or EV.
 
Back
Top