Why there is always so much fuss about labels? Across so many different domains. Cars needed OTA update to be driven safely. Why is it important whether we call it a recall or not?
I am not trying to make a point here. Clearly some people care about that. I'm legitimately curious why.
>I wonder if you exclude "recalls" resolved by software updates, for all cars, where it would rank then?
Why have you put "recalls" in quotes? It gives the impression you think this makes it somehow lesser. The cybertruck, for example, was subject to a recall because the rearview camera wouldn't come up, but the mirrors are insufficient to back the vehicle up safely without the camera.
That's a safety issue, irrespective of whether or not the fix was in software.
The problem is that those issues shouldn't happen on a public road vehicle to begin with. Tesla's approach is shipping beta software to customers, and using them as testers. This is an insidious practice in modern software development, but is criminal when that software is running a 3-ton vehicle, regardless if it can be fixed with an OTA update or not. There are reasons why strict car safety regulations exist. You can't just sell early access cars and fix issues as customers experience them.
Recall is the industry-standard (and populace-understood) term for “this vehicle has a safety or reliability issue that must be resolved by the manufacturer.” It is all encompassing; anything from possibly loose lugnuts to faulty airbags to engine failures to yes, the reverse camera failing to appear. It doesn’t matter if the manufacturer ships an OTA update, shows up at your house with a loaner and a flatbed to take your car, or requires you to go into the dealership for service, it’s a recall.
I'm not sure I agree. From the perspective of a customer, not being able to drive the car due to it being unsafe is the part that matters, not where and how the manufacturer has to fix it.
If you're opposed to it based on the assumption that it wouldn't take as long, I agree that might be true, but by that logic we should be categorizing _all_ recalls based on length (regardless of whether it's a software update or otherwise), since I'm not convinced that the average length of time until a problem is fixed will always be perfectly split with the software ones being super quick and the ones that would need to happen in person being super slow. What if the mechanics are already aware of how to fix the issue and can do it the same day, or if the software issue turns out to take a long time due to the developers needing a lot of time to fix the bug?
If you're opposed to it purely from the perspective of linguistics and "recall" sounds like "return to the manufacturer", I think I'd disagree due to the word "recall" not being super commonly used for that in other circumstances. If anything, the other usage of the word that springs to mind most readily to me is recalling someone or something "from service", which I think fits perfectly here.
They are called recalls because that’s what the term for legalisation mandates. They are issued when a vehicle is unsafe to drive and they are mandated because a manufacturer is required to take a lot of steps to remedy their failure. If they fail to repair the issue they are forced to issue full refunds as an example.
So no, the word recall is used because is the official terminology used for these issues regardless of the solution required to fix them.
The word does have its origin in a world where solutions were rarely software updates. That they are software issues make them no less serious though. I suspect that in some cases the software issues might indeed be far more dangerous than errors which mandate physical recalls.
The word recall sort of implies that the vehicle is recalled to the manufacturer. Calling a software update that happens in your garage at night and takes 20 minutes a “recall” definitely is worthy of quotes.
The word bug sort of implies that the device was struck by a terrestrial arthropod animal. Calling a software defect that happens due to a programming error a "bug" definitely is worthy of quotes.
(The etymology of a word can be quite different from its current meaning today.)
If you think about the financial implications then probably yes. Software issues, safety related or not, can probably easily be fixed OTA and thus don’t even cause a fraction of the costs a (let’s call it "real") recall costs.
Also, in the head of most people, I think, a recall is something where the car needs to be returned physically. But still, obviously, the issues can be as serious as physical issues. It’s just that we’re used to physical recalls.
Getting an OTA software update to your vehicle is far less disruptive to your life than having to take it in to the dealer. Obviously safety issues shouldn't happen, but how easy they are to fix also matters.
At the very least, it puts the quality control of Tesla in question, as those are failures which should have been caught PRIOR to a commercial launch.
Tesla is treating its product-launches like it's just some browser-game in the cloud, instead of treating it as what it is: The handover of a 6000 pound bullet into the hand of a customer who will fire it into a crowd in expectation to not hit anyone...
A recall is about the issue, not how it's resolved. A recall means there are some serious security flaws that needs fixing. Even if they can be fixed OTA, they're still a flaw, and Tesla has had many of those.
Couldn't agree more. Recall means "sufficiently dangerous to need to recall the vehicle to the manufacturer" - yes, in the modern world it can be fixed OTA, but it's still dangerous enough to require a mass fix to a fast-moving death machine.
Very few others have recalls that can be done OTA. Even if it is just software, expect an hour to days at a service center to do the update, if the techs can figure it out.
For Tesla, the software recalls are nearly automatic (one click install, just like other update), such that few owners even know that their car ever had a recall.
Sure, but "recall" in the automotive market has a very precise meaning, and refers to safety issues (at production line level, so impacting many VINs)that needs to be fixed. In Tesla's case, unlike most of other vendors, generally these recalls can be fixed with an OTA update.
The CT OTOH had many "classical" physical recalls due to hardware issues.
This is kind of true. Say what you want about Tesla, but they have the best software experience out of the other car manufacturers. I love my BMW i4, but had to take into the shop just to fix a botched softwares update. Well, at least the cabin is silent.
I've bought several new cars in the past few years and zero of them have had a recall I'm aware of, software or otherwise. My old car went almost 20 years with just two recalls that I can remember.
Even ignoring software recalls, then, the Cybertruck has a significantly higher recall rate (per unit time) than anything I've owned, so the fact that it has had even more recalls that could be serviced OTA is really neither here nor there. The user-facing software systems in these modern luxury cars really do seem to cause a lot of issues.
> I wonder if you exclude "recalls" resolved by software updates, for all cars, where it would rank then?
While I agree that the term "recall" is overloaded, the Cybertruck has had some pretty spicy safety related "recalls". Issues that, frankly, it should not have been allowed onto public roads with.
I don't know about you but there are some kind of car brand and models that if I see on the road i know i must be very carefull of its driver. For instance, brand new Peugeot you know the driver might mistake at some point the brake for the accelerator.
I have yet to see a cybertruck in Europe but god knows i will be careful of them. No sane people could ever buy them.
I consider this as a feature for other drivers, it's like a big red sign pointing 'i put crayon up my nose'.
Ah, another frog with the same system! Same when I see Korean SUVs, personally. To be honest, I at least respect the Cybertruck for trying to look truly different in a sea of homogeneous bland, but I would never buy one.
Are these "recalls" just simple over the air software updates? Just because car people are not used to this doesn't make it necessarily bad. Obviously no bugs are better than some bugs. But people here tend to know how software development works.
This always comes up. A “recall” is not a description of the remediation, it is a description of the problem.
A recall is a public dangerous defect notice. The dangerous product version can no longer be deployed, existing systems suffering from the dangerous defect are identified, and then the version with those dangerous defects is removed from the market with all due speed by either refunding, replacing, or remediating at the manufacturer’s expense. The defective version is thus no longer present, i.e “recalled”.
The term has a precise meaning as I laid out. Unfortunately, it has been so thoroughly intentionally poisoned by bad actors in recent years that the term should be retired. We should use the descriptive term: “Public Dangerous Defect Notice” to avoid such bad faith misrepresentation going forward.
> The term has a precise meaning as I laid out. Unfortunately, it has been so thoroughly intentionally poisoned by bad actors in recent years that the term should be retired.
Nah, that's a sleigh of hand. Recall literally means recall. Whatever the actual technical definition, the common-man understanding has always been "manufacturer asking you to give your car back, because they screwed up badly enough to be legally forced to fix it". The focus is, and always has been, on the physically give your car back to manufacturer part.
The precise meaning you laid out? That's arguably a typical case of using ancillary aspects of a thing as a proxy, because they're much easier to precisely pin down than the thing you actually want. Think every other term explicitly defined in any contract - the definition tends to not be what's intended, but something that mostly overlaps with intent and is easier to spell out concisely.
The overall point being: regardless of what the technical meaning of "recall" is, if you put Tesla's OTA fixes together with everyone's repairs that require shipping the car itself to the manufacturer, and then treat them all as equal, that's just blatant, bald-faced lie, a clear indication of purposeful dishonesty.
To your point, both things can be true. The CyberTruck can have recalls worse than 91% of all 2024 cars, but many of its recalls can be cheap to for Tesla to fix.
I think that is where the two clusters of people that I see commenting here are converging / possibly arguing past each other.
One popular form of headline that comes to my mind from business new channels of which I remember no specific instance basically goes like this: “Car manufacturer recalls X many cars costing over them Y dollars because of some fault”. X is usually in the tens of thousands or more and Y is usually in the millions of dollars (now maybe tens of millions of dollars).
Just because we tolerate it doesn't mean others should too.
Legacy industries view software projects as a 1-and-done deal. The "we'll fix it live" approach in tech is a short-coming of our discipline. We can ignore it when failure means a mild inconvenience. But, hard engineering isn't as forgiving.
Even if the fix is 'just' a software update, the bug can put lives at risk. [1]
Each industry and its regulators come with certain norms. Cars are expected to be delivered as 'complete' products. If Tesla can't abide by that expectation, then that's their problem. Don't drag the entire software industry into this.
> Just because car people are not used to this doesn't make it necessarily bad.
Of course it's bad. If this were a purely software discussion, would anybody be saying "It's OK they have a bazillion zero-days every year because they're quick to fix them when they learn about them"?
Also, remember that the flipside is also true: with aggressive OTA updates, they have the ability to create new issues that weren't there to begin with. I wouldn't trust somebody with that bad a QA track record to not introduce new issues.
Mine has two physical recalls active, but they’re not serious so I haven’t scheduled any maintenance yet. Unlike my Honda civic a couple of decades ago which had an airbag that was killing people. That one I got taken care of quickly.
It is not the only one. While it's true this affects roughly 1/5 to 1/3 of all Cybertrucks sold so far this year (depending on which random sales numbers online you believe), some of the others have affected every Cybertruck sold, such as the wiper motor burning out or the pieces of bed trim falling off while driving.
I cannot find any evidence that previous physical recalls this year only affected a few hundred units. Two are 2000+ units and the others seem to be however many had sold by the date of the recall (10k+ in both instances).
Except that this is car development with clear guidelines and if you don't adhere to them you have to live with your bugs being labeled as recalls. People should be made aware of when players don't adhere to industry standards with safety implications and you don't get that by just sweeping them under the carpet as "bugs".
Completely unrelated to safety, these vehicles don't look like they are aging well. They are all completely new but the ones I am seeing on the road already look a bit beat up. That finish on them and their general styling emphasize every minor blemish.
Car panels are convex on nearly all other cars for very good reason. Flat panels are structurally susceptible to damages which wouldn’t mark a standard panel. Adding a highly reflective surface was another great move.
I wonder what tests car companies generally do to predict how durable a style choice is (how scratches, corrosion, etc will impact the look). Protecting your brand is also about what people will see in the future, not just what is on the showroom now. If 5 years from now all of these vehicles look terrible that won't help sales for any of their models.
I know in the past they've looked at data from used cars, and they also have HALT/HASS (highly accelerated life/stress) testing which does things like e.g. spray the car with concentrated salt solution in a wind tunnel, things like that.
I believe many manufacturers also look at data from people like Munro & Associates who tear down cars, figure out what they're made from, and how they were made.
I have no dog in this fight, but its worth nothing that its an odd experience to hear your anecdote wipes out numerous others because waves magic wand media sensationalism. Then, this sort of makes me think again and realize that unless you think metal will neverever rust, it seems odd to say it was "sensationalism" thats implied to be "fixed"
most people care about scratches because they look like shit.
paint is a bit more than just corrosion protection at this point, otherwise mfgs would just slap on the thickest toughest machine-tool grade enamel and call it a day.
To each their own on this matter because styling is a matter of taste. I remember the shift from the '70s style boxy cars to the mid to late '80s rounded style cars. I wasn't a fan of that new style when it came out but it did eventually grow on me.
For me the cybertruck looks like something out of a low budget'70s Sci-Fi movie. Who knows in 10 years maybe it will start to appeal to me but for right now it doesn't.
The article has about equal time about what Cybertruck owners dont care about, safety, reliability, etc.
> Similar to other critics (earlier this year, a CNN reviewer called the pickup a “disturbing level of individual arrogance in hard, unforgiving steel”)—Drury believes Cybertruck buyers are people “who think ‘I don’t care if I kill people when I drive this thing down the street,’” he says. “There aren’t many of those people out there, so there’s a relatively small market for the Cybertruck.”
What's the term right wing folks use? Virtue Signaling? The cyber truck is that.
People buy them because they are politically charged, and you can be seen as a tribe member.
But I kinda think it's sad, because I think most tribes make fun of the cyber truck buyer, so they've bought a very expensive, very shoddy ticket into an in group, only to mark themselves as an outsider who bought their way in.
Like nearly all gigantic trucks driven in cities (and almost never off road), though the cybertruck is a new low in likelyhood to kill innocent pedestrians. The most accurate term for this phenomenon is either Emotional Support Vehicle or Gender Affirming Vehicle.
I saw my first Cybertruck the other day. It looked less weird in person than I expected it.
It's a very different and new design. How many of the 91% we're comparing to are completely new designs. What's the correct benchmark?
Let's rewrite the headline. "A radical new EV design from Tesla, the Cybertruck, is already ahead of 9% of all 2024 vehicles in quality as it just ramps up production".
I'll likely never own this - not my style. But I can appreciate doing things differently and being successful at that. Getting those gas guzzling truck owners to go electric would be nice too.
In a vacuum I would agree with you, but it fails in lots of predictable ways, and doesnt really offer any utility as a new design. And where they tried to engineer around these issues they often over engineered instead of removing the problem.
I honestly like the way it looks, but I am happy I never preordered it or anything. The reviews are shocking. Even the positive reviews tend to hyperfocus on situations that can be capably dealt with by a standard hatchback. You can take a honda jazz across more terrain.
Its a failure, one that was likely very familiar to HN members. I am sure that internally engineers made every single one of these issues very apparent to management and they shipped anyway.
The word 'utility' in the comment you're replying to specifically means how the design functions, not how it looks. For example, it's a truck that's design makes it worse for carrying cargo in the tray than a standard truck.
> word 'utility' specifically means how it functions, not how it looks
Yes. Not offering utility in design is common in cars. Most people don’t buy a truck to haul. Most people don’t buy an off-roader to go off road. (Most people don’t buy a sports car to race.)
But if they do need to haul or tow something, they can.
> Most people don’t buy an off-roader to go off road.
But if they do need to go off-road, they can.
> Most people don’t buy a sports car to race.
Sports cars can be enjoyed (relatively) legally on the street. Quick acceleration combined with very good handling and a sense of connection to the road is a feeling you can enjoy at 55mph. Many people won’t drive their sports cars to the limit, but they are still a more enjoyable driving experience than a regular car for people who care about that.
A cybertruck can’t really haul things, it can’t really tow things, and it can’t be that fun to drive. I hope it’s at least comfortable, but based on my experience with their other vehicles, I doubt it.
> but it fails in lots of predictable ways, and doesnt really offer any utility as a new design
In what ways has it failed predictably? There are a number of things that could contribute to various failures/recalls that relate to utility provided by the (novel) design. For example the steer-by-wire system or the mid-voltage (48 V DC) electrical system.
The main example of "this is just dumb design for no reason" is the recall due to the pedal cover sliding up and jamming, but that was only 1 out of 6.
The only people I know who were genuinely impressed by cybertruck are 1. My father in law who was visiting USA and does not know how to drive, and 2. My 3yo son.
I'd hazard a guess that making it pointy, shiny and prone to rusting is not what many people would call "radical and new". DMC was what, 40 years ago? And that one didn't rust as far as I remember.
I'll never buy one but I suspect a lot of the "AHA GOTCHA" attitude coming from more traditional car-oriented media is coming from a place of not liking an upstart.
There's just a lot of easy things to point at with the Cybertruck because of what was promised vs what was delivered. This happens with model cars from other manufacturers too though what changes there is often more looks than promised functionality.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Personally I think they look hideous. That doesn't bother me. To each their own and all that. What does bother me are all the problems. Consumer Reports went into this. There are numerous videos about it.
For example, it has steel panels but... an aluminium frame. That's an odd choice. If you're towing something heavy then up and down motion makes the frame prone to snapping.
Big trucks (eg F150, F250, F350) exist because of a quirk in regulation where so-called "work vehicles" were exempted from emissions standards. This part is a real shame because the US doesn't have vehicles lik the Toyota Hilux, which actually have an equivalent tray size and would be much more economical to run.
An electric truck may allow a smaller truck because it's not affected by emissions (obviously). Perhaps battery weight makes this impractical. It would be nice. I mean some people import Japanese K trucks now.
Competition-wise the Ford F150 Lightning looks like a much better proposition. It looks like a truck. It's built on a proven frame. Still, sales seem to be weak. For work vehicles in particular (and, yes, a lot of trucks aren't work vehicles; they're essentially ornamental) could be quite limited by EV charging issues vs the convenience of filling up a tank of gas.
> "This part is a real shame because the US doesn't have vehicles like the Toyota Hilux"
That was the first and only truck (or any car) I've ever owned! It was just called the "Toyota Pickup" in the US but it's the same model. I used it to drive ladder racks and paint around Denver while I was in the house painting business to pay my way through college. It had almost 200k miles on it when I gave it to my dad after I graduated and decided to move abroad. To the best of my knowledge, he's still driving it and when I last asked him about it several years ago, it had well over half a million miles on it.
At least for ICE cars and trucks made in the 90s, Toyota's quality was unmatched. My dad is much better at taking care of old cars (and used to be a plane mechanic long ago), but I had no idea what I was doing and that pickup seemed virtually impervious to normal wear and tear.
> Getting those gas guzzling truck owners to go electric would be nice too.
Congratulations, you solved 1 issue related to car dependency and proliferation of huge vehicles, namely tailpipe emissions. Now the other 99 remain.
The solution to gas guzzling trucks is "boring", it's good trains, it's protected bike lanes in urban environments, it's smaller and safer cars in less dense environments, etc. But these things don't make Mr Musk money :)
Trains will not enter American suburbs, nor will most truck drivers consider biking as a valid alternative.
I'm all for better transit, but it doesn't change that the trucks/SUVs keep selling and getting more polluting, and will do so for decades as part of the fleet
No more a death machine than a Cadillac Escalade or a Dodge ram truck. There's lots of criticisms you can make about the cybertruck that are exclusive to the cybertruck but this isn't one. This complaint is about bad drivers. The rise of all the driver assist technology is enabling bad drivers to believe that they are better than they are. This is across vehicle brands.
Aren't all trucks? Wouldn't the sensor suite and auto-braking make it maybe somewhat safer? Is this something that gets tested for by car manufacturers?
Also, the hood + "grill" is significantly lower. A pedestrian would bounce (although uncomfortably) instead of hit by a wall and run over like most other trucks / SUVs.
Does anyone know what the deal is with Cybertrucks coming in different colors all of a sudden? I thought they were only sold as bare steel? But now I see matte black cybertrucks regularly.
Had same question so parked next to a black one. It was wrap. Since then I seen green, pink and blue cybertrucks; all wraps with companies advertising. All of sudden majority I see are small business owners wrap-advertising. Rarely see the steel one. This is for Miami FL.
If this piece of crap is worse than only 91% of all 2024 vehicles, I really wonder what the other 9%, vehicles that are allegedly even worse, are. The article doesn't name them.
Dude, the thing with these things is that the breathlessness has already exhausted belief. Supposedly Tesla Y was a terrible thing, supposedly everyone was going to die in the heat under the Tesla tent, supposedly Twitter would die in 3 days without their staff.
Nothing happened. Everyone I know who owns a Tesla loves it. So I’m going to file this under “internet hates guy; tries to make it sound like he makes bad things” which people do a lot with Musk stuff.
None of the Tesla cars are one I’ll buy (need 3 rows comfortably - might even buy the new VW electric van) but I’m getting the feeling from the online techies like I did at the AirPod release and the iPad release: my instinct is that this is great stuff; then my friends who buy it love it; then everyone online hates it; then it sells billions of dollars worth.
> supposedly Twitter would die in 3 days without their staff.
I agree people tend to overreact and overblow expected consequences, but I mean, twitter's valuation is down 80%[0] and they haven't released anything new in two years, after exhausting the backlog of already developed things.
I wouldn't say that everyone who owns a Tesla loves it. As a matter of fact everyone I know who has bought a Tesla and loves it came from a car that was a lower quality and lower priced car than the Tesla that they bought. The people that I know that came from equally priced or higher priced cars are satisfied with their Tesla but they do not love it.
I think that is a lot of the bias with Tesla owners many of them have never owned a car in that price range before and they bought it because of the hype surrounding the Tesla. Prior to that they would have never thought of buying a car in that price range. Often times when you buy a car in that price range you're getting a better quality car because it's from a manufacturer who's been around longer.
> supposedly Twitter would die in 3 days without their staff.
It’s true that the smaller team has succeeded with uptime on the core service. It’s also true, however, that the platform is in serious decline, and that’s partly due to the product becoming more and more shitty over time. It turns out skeleton crews can’t make things that are nice to use. Have you tried the X mac app lately? It’s just horrible. Broken modals, empty loading screens, janky layout with desperate upsell message slapped everywhere.
Keeping the platform online with a smaller team was a win, sure. But don’t pretend there’s been no impact.
I was actually referring to the financial institutions who backed the takeover writing off ~75% of the value of their investment in the platform during Musk’s leadership, which predates the recent Bluesky enthusiasm.
But since you mention it: yes, a vocal minority of leftists moving to a new platform is indeed a decline! Get your politics out of it and think about what it means for a business. Part of twitter’s value was that it was where news broke, people made statements, etc. It was cited on the news. There was no other platform like that (except perhaps Instagram, usually with pop culture figures). There is indeed a small group of people who, if you lose them, cause enormous damage to a platform like Twitter, because for many people using it they are using it because of the other people using it. Network effects cut both ways.
I have heard from three Tesla owners how uncomfortable they find the seats during very long drives, so not everyone "loves" it. Perhaps if you don't drive long distances in it, your experience will not reveal this.
Everyone’s giving their anecdotes of “no not every Tesla owner loves them” so I’ll give my own. I’ve owned a 3, a Y, and now a cybertruck. These cars are awesome.
We had a “bomb cyclone” last week in the PNW that took out power for half a million homes, and my cybertruck was a lifesaver. Powered my house for multiple days, allowing my family to stay at home. Our fridge and freezer stayed powered and I even ran my clothes dryer one day just because I could. I can’t sing its praises enough after this experience.
I owned a Tesla. I sold it. Loved it for three years then hated it. It became a nightmare to own and the service dept was such a hassle. They refused to fix recall issues, things broke all the time. It was trash, and I was so blinded by speedy car that I didn't notice it was trash until years later.
Gosh I still laugh at all the "I'm and SRE and I can promise you Twitter is going to fail with all the people he cut" and it had what, 3 blips at most?
They're hard to find now, I assume because of how embarrassed the authors were for posting them.
Not an SRE but I admit to saying that I expected Twitter to have some serious outages in the coming months after firing all those people. Honestly, how did the remaining engineers at Twitter pull it off? I can't really imagine losing more than half of my coworkers and not having the wheels fall off pretty quickly.
Twitter was overstaffed, but much of the "extra" staff the elon fired weren't SREs keeping the systems running, they had to do with things like moderation. Elon doesn't believe in moderation, so out they went, and the skeleton crew was able to keep the site running, for the most part, but now the user experience has gone to hell unless you're a right-wing nutcase, so everyone who isn't is fleeing, as well as advertisers who Twitter even threatened to sue because they weren't buying advertising (!).
Twitter for what it is had too many engineers. I think part of the problem was the fad of more workers more hiring will generate more revenue but that was not true and just was a way to prop up the stock value.
Small consolation for the pedestrian who gets run over. Massive cars and distracting screens are two of the main reasons traffic deaths are on the rise, and they're both two selling points people like about Teslas.
I have driven a model 3 and it is hands down the worst 45k (CAD) car I’ve ever driven. Horrible ride quality, uncomfortable seats, terrible (in my opinion - beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose) and slightly dangerous interior, not really all that fast compared to other cars in the price bracket. I’ve also ridden in one with 100k km and it was falling apart - even ignoring the interior, the suspension was horrid (you shouldn’t need new shocks and springs all around after less than 100k lm of driving), the paint was faded to crap, panel gaps were notably worse than when the same car was new.
They are a 15k car at best with 20k worth of batteries masquerading as a nice car. They’re not. They’re a reasonably cost-effective EV, compared to the rest of the market, but they’re not even close to gas cars in the same price range when it comes to anything other than cost per mile.
man, the internet is being so weird about this truck it's absurd.
Like its shape is weird and 'dangerous', but the F150, RAM truck etc etc are MORE dangerous shape wise, but because it has a 'conventional' shape and the change happened gradually, some how it's ok?
The strangest was the carrot test, they kept doing this test the Cyber truck frunk... but guess what, same happens if you put carrots across the opening of other EV truck with auto close... I saw a video of it same happening with an F150 EV...what even was the point of this whole hullabaloo
I am not American, I don't even have a car, I just hate that this nonsense is polluting my internet feeds.
It's a big car with a long truck, congrats, it's not the anti christ, shut up about it.
exactly, Pedestrian safety of all american trucks is terrible, yet we don't hear about the big speeding wall that are the 'conventional' american truck... but apparently the cyber truck is a pedestrian predator they 'suddenly' discovered.
Either do something about the terrible truck design... or shut up and tolerate the cyber truck like you tolerate the F150 EV or whatever.
Fluff like this just pollutes the EV news space without providing any new info.
I talk about the front shape and its effect on pedestrian safety.
The article about the cyber truck always talk about how its wedge shape will slice people off or whatever... but the Standard American truck shape (big flat front nose) is just as dangerous, being hit by a speeding wall is not beneficial either.
If publications want to talk about bad truck shapes in good faith, talk about ALL truck shapes! Singling out the truck made by Tesla when the trucks made by other American automakers is just as dangerous is obvious click bait, and just pollutes the EV news scape.
> The F150, generously, is 2/3 the weight. (median F150 vs. lowest cybertruck)
I was comparing like with like, and acc to google the F150 EV is about the same weight as the Cybertruck. (around ~ 3,000 Kg)
Also I was referring to the line in this article where they talk about how it doesn't meet EU regulations, which leads to another article[1] of their, which talks a LOT about cybertruck's bad front shape... (which I must mention for clarity, IS bad)... but make no mention of the even WORSE shapes by other competing American trucks.
Because the fact is... Tesla sells clicks. They reference a letter [2] by the NGO protesting about the (private) import of this particular turck... but said NGO's website makes no mention of OTHER dangerous american trucks privately imported to europe and parading about. The story is not the shape or pedestrian safety... it's click.
Btw, I am not in Europe. I live in a 3rd world country, not sure where I gave that insinuation.
TL:DR; ALL american trucks are terribly shaped and designed or whatever. ALL american trucks have multiple other issues and recalls... as is routine with the damn things.
Yet this particular stupid truck gets posted because it's click bait, NOT because there is some actual information to be gained. We should downvote such clickbait pollution on our feeds.
I love how people who claim to not care dedicate so much time to telling everyone how much they don’t care. You could have just not posted. But clearly you do care a lot. Get help.
I care about EVs and climate change and emission reduction and all that.
What I don't care about is the Electric vehicle news feed being polluted with irrelevant nonsense when there are far more important news to be shared.
I don't care about the Cybertruck's oddities... because those oddities are common to other american EV trucks and therefore bring nothing new to the table.
I am not trying to make a point here. Clearly some people care about that. I'm legitimately curious why.
reply