? Tesla Truck Kinda Edgy Tho - Tesla releases oddly polygonal pickup truck

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 minute ago, rcmaehl said:

There's nothing wrong the the Mach-E and it's a great car (minus the people upset it shares the Mustang name), meanwhile POLARIZING POLYGONS PERPLEX THE PERFORMANCE POPULACE

Same people that got upset ford replaced the v6 for a turbo 4. Times are a changing. Expect to see more electric cars from ford and VW. Wouldn’t be surprised if Chevy also works with them on electric cars too. Chevy and ford already worked together on their 10 speed auto

[rcmaehl]

1 minute ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Expect to see more electric cars from ford and VW. 

99.9% sure VW is going majorly electric by 2022 based on their existing prototypes. I really want a I.D. BUZZ

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

Yep.   This is what happens when you hit utility too hard.

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

@dalekphalm

Crumple zones? For pedestrians?

Steel is steel.  Stainless can just be made not to rust.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Same people that got upset ford replaced the v6 for a turbo 4. Times are a changing. Expect to see more electric cars from ford and VW. Wouldn’t be surprised if Chevy also works with them on electric cars too. Chevy and ford already worked together on their 10 speed auto

Ford claims to have given up on electric.  I suspect that means they made a deal with someone.  Maybe tesla.

[Velcade]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Ford claims to have given up on electric.  I suspect that means they made a deal with someone.  Maybe tesla.

Probably Rivian.  Ford did give them 500 million dollars

[MadyTehWolfie]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Ford claims to have given up on electric.  I suspect that means they made a deal with someone.  Maybe tesla.

They never gave up on it, they are partnering with VW to develop electric cars

[Blademaster91]

9 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Same people that got upset ford replaced the v6 for a turbo 4. Times are a changing. Expect to see more electric cars from ford and VW. Wouldn’t be surprised if Chevy also works with them on electric cars too. Chevy and ford already worked together on their 10 speed auto

There is good reason to be upset at Ford replacing a more reliable v6 for a turbo 4, cramming a lot of boost into an already stressed 4 cylinder is a bad idea IMO, and sure you get better MPG until you actually need to accelerate or merge onto a highway.

I don't have problem with Ford calling the Mach-E a Mustang though, they have to compete with Tesla, so slapping the Mustang name on a fun handling SUV will get people to say they have a Mustang.

[Zando_]

12 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Same people that got upset ford replaced the v6 for a turbo 4. Times are a changing. Expect to see more electric cars from ford and VW. Wouldn’t be surprised if Chevy also works with them on electric cars too. Chevy and ford already worked together on their 10 speed auto

I don't think peeps are complaining about it being an electric car. An electric GT350R would probs be pretty nuts performance wise. The issue is that they took the 2-door, pony/muscle car, Mustang name, and slapped that on a crossover/SUV. They already have the Edge/Explorer line, could have just added a Mach-E on top of those. Most of the anger I've seen for it is based off the name. Adding insult to injury, they brought back the Mach name back only to slap it on the aforementioned not-a-2-door-muscle-car crossover/SUV thing. 

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

The fact that it's a truck is irrelevant. The design is outdated.

And as for "a truck hasn't been done like this before," this thing is an uninspired lump of metal that looks like a mid 90's game render, something most people don't really like. No truck manufacturer went with this design because none of them are stupid enough to.

 

And it's not like trucks currently on the market have the issue of being either forgettable design or designs being damn near identical. It's not the 80's anymore. So, it doesn't even have an edge in being different. It's just different for the sake of being different.

Since when did you become the sole arbiter of taste in product design?

 

You don't have to like the Cybertruck design, but please don't be so arrogant as to presume to speak for everyone else.  If people like it or at least find value in Tesla's audacity, let them have it.

 

There's also evidence to contradict your claims that modern trucks stand out... I don't mind their designs, but they do tend to have a stereotypical formula with giant, vertical grills, flared wheel arches and other cues that tap into almost comic stereotypes of "macho" trucks.  Not that Tesla isn't trying to tap into some of this, but it's definitely not the conventional approach to trucks.

[RejZoR]

19 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Steel is steel.  Stainless can just be made not to rust.

Do I need to tell you to imagine hitting a person with hose straight sharp edges? What are you expecting to crumple there? The metal or someone's bones and skull? Why do you think all European cars have soft front bumpers and masks, shorter more angled hoods, hoods that are softer for impacts in the middle and why EURO NCAP does pedestrian impacts evaluations? Now look at this speeding anvil.

[dalekphalm]

27 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

@dalekphalm

Crumple zones? For pedestrians?

Crumple zones, not specifically for pedestrians, but it was a comment someone brought up. Rest assured that the final design will follow all regulations. Otherwise it wouldn't be road legal. My point being, your rant about it not being practical doesn't seem to be based on anything.

27 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Tesla releases a fuggo pickup truck and gets a thread on here, meanwhile ford releases the all electric Mach-E and no one bats an eye.... hhhhmmmm.... me thinks soon Tesla won’t be the only electric car makers in town and other companies will soon surpass them in both range and affordability.

I did talk about it with another user, but no one made a thread.

 

The Mach-E looks fucking sweet. It's a really nice Model 3 competitor, but since it's a crossover SUV, it actually might have even more appeal.

27 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Yeah that is a really good observation, the top ridge looks a lot like a roll cage, and the bed being integrated into the body will probably help with handling,  but the sharp ridge line just doesn't look appealing IMO and I still prefer a sweeping or flat roof line.  It can be difficult to get parts from Tesla,not just any shop does Tesla repairs either so it being cab forward with tons of glass could be an issue.

 

27 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

A ramp seems very much a gimmick, as soon as you roll an ATV full of mud up the ramp you're going to ruin it.

Maybe - you could potentially hose it down, but without testing, you can't make that claim without certainty. Ideally they've tested the ramp for robustness.

27 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The Raptor is a niche, it's more of a fun toy than a practical work truck.

Yep, and? It's still a vehicle with speed as the primary design factor.

27 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

A 500 mile range at full capacity? I seriously doubt that, likely not at 65mph or climbing any hills.

Of course not. It having 500 mile range at full capacity is absurd. That was the entire point of my post. They said it would get 500 mile range, and someone interpreted that as meaning full towing. Which is ridiculous. No logical person would make that assumption.

27 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

So the whole point of driving an electric truck would be taken away because you need fuel to recharge the truck lol.

Well no - because every other time you use it without exceeding the range, you'll be fine. I find these anti-EV arguments kind of odd, when people seem to think it must be this all or nothing thing.

 

Any reduction in gas or diesel usage is a net benefit. Even if sometimes you gotta charge your EV with fossil fuel sources.

[Velcade]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

The Mach-E looks fucking sweet. It's a really nice Model 3 Model Y competitor, but since it's a crossover SUV, it actually might have even more appeal.

FTFY

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Since when did you become the sole arbiter of taste in product design?

 

You don't have to like the Cybertruck design, but please don't be so arrogant as to presume to speak for everyone else.  If people like it or at least find value in Tesla's audacity, let them have it.

 

There's also evidence to contradict your claims that modern trucks stand out... I don't mind their designs, but they do tend to have a stereotypical formula with giant, vertical grills, flared wheel arches and other cues that tap into almost comic stereotypes of "macho" trucks.  Not that Tesla isn't trying to tap into some of this, but it's definitely not the conventional approach to trucks.

I suppose that comeuppance would apply to me as well.  We’ll see what happens.  Cars are wearable art to some degree.  It is polarizing.  I think it should go more rugged and army.  That’s me though.  The public will vote and they will do it with dollars

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Velcade said:

FTFY

No. It's a model 3 competitor too. In fact, I'd say it competes with both.

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Do I need to tell you to imagine hitting a person with hose straight sharp edges? What are you expecting to crumple there? The metal or someone's bones and skull? Why do you think all European cars have soft front bumpers and masks, shorter more angled hoods, hoods that are softer for impacts in the middle and why EURO NCAP does pedestrian impacts evaluations? Now look at this speeding anvil.

None of those are arguments about what I just said.  Watch some old SAAB and Volvo videos from before they went chinese and were both Swedish.  You can do amazing crumple zone stuff with steel.  You’re right though in that there is no bumper.  There’s also no mirrors, side lights, or any other anticilliary stuff.  That’s why I think it’s a mule not a final product.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

None of those are arguments about what I just said.  Watch some old SAAB and Volvo videos from before they went chinese and were both Swedish.  You can do amazing crumple zone stuff with steel.  You’re right though in that there is no bumper.  There’s also no mirrors, side lights, or any other anticilliary stuff.  That’s why I think it’s a mule not a final product.

The mirrors may be Camera based - not sure if that's legal though. Or they could be retracting and simply not visible.

But we all know there are going to be minor changes before launch. They have a year still.

[RejZoR]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

None of those are arguments about what I just said.  Watch some old SAAB and Volvo videos from before they went chinese and were both Swedish.  You can do amazing crumple zone stuff with steel.  You’re right though in that there is no bumper.  There’s also no mirrors, side lights, or any other anticilliary stuff.  That’s why I think it’s a mule not a final product.

Because I don't give a shit about crumple zones. I wasn't talking about car to car collisions at ANY point. I was talking about this brick hitting a living person. What has Saab or Volvo to do with any of this?!

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Because I don't give a shit about crumple zones. I wasn't talking about car to car collisions at ANY point. I was talking about this brick hitting a living person. What has Saab or Volvo to do with any of this?!

So was I.  You didn’t watch the videos did you.

 

there was a guy in the 50’s. A priest or something who tried to design a pedestrian safe car.  It was insane looking.  An actual cow catcher on the front.  Then Volvo came along and made a more pedestrian safe car that looked like a car.  You’re talking about a non problem.  

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Because I don't give a shit about crumple zones. I wasn't talking about car to car collisions at ANY point. I was talking about this brick hitting a living person. What has Saab or Volvo to do with any of this?!

And what happens when someone gets run over by a full size F-150? The front is basically a flat surface to smash you with. Some people aren't even tall enough that their head even reaches the top of the hood.

And that's not counting larger trucks like an F-250 or 350 or a delivery truck, etc.

 

Leave the safety ratings to the regulators - if it's super dangerous, they'll rate it as such.

[suicidalfranco]

WANT!!!
 

but i also want this one

 

[Drak3]

8 minutes ago, Commodus said:

There's also evidence to contradict your claims that modern trucks stand out... I don't mind their designs, but they do tend to have a stereotypical formula with giant, vertical grills, flared wheel arches and other cues that tap into almost comic stereotypes of "macho" trucks

There's a large difference between sharing attributes and having designs that are either unremarkable or highly similar to other vehicles in the class.

 

Trucks share a rough silhouette because that design is the best at filling the purpose of a truck. The giant grill is a requirement for the cooling that larger engine options (Powerstroke, Duramax, Cummins, Hemi, iForce) need when you use the truck for hauling or towing, and there's no point in designing different grills for every engine. Flared wheel help shield other vehicles from debris coming off the wheels.

 

Where trucks get their personality are the actual designs of their features. They are wildly different.

 

Whereas common cars deliberately share designs within brands to reduce costs (sometimes outside of brands, if manufacturers aren't targeting the same market segments), and they all are designed for aerodynamics first.

[Drak3]

26 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

And what happens when someone gets run over by a full size F-150?

Not going to happen. The mustang already took them out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s

[RejZoR]

30 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

And what happens when someone gets run over by a full size F-150? The front is basically a flat surface to smash you with. Some people aren't even tall enough that their head even reaches the top of the hood.

And that's not counting larger trucks like an F-250 or 350 or a delivery truck, etc.

 

Leave the safety ratings to the regulators - if it's super dangerous, they'll rate it as such.

If you didn't get the memo, that was my point of all the posts. I'm just talking about Tesla here since it's a Tesla thread...

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

If you didn't get the memo, that was my point of all the posts. I'm just talking about Tesla here since it's a Tesla thread...

I agree with you. @RejZoR seems to be quite concerned though.