Who is excited about Cybertruck?

[jebinc]

In my opinion most naysayers in this thread don't understand why the Cybertrucks looks the way it looks. Does it look good? That's highly debatable, even I would say a door wedge ain't the prettiest.

The manufacturing processes Tesla is employing to create the CT and the non rounded edges look are one and the same reason how they're reducing build costs. If anyone has doubt on Tesla's manufacturing efficiencies and scaling capabilities you guys really need to take a step back form the Elon hate. (And no I'm not a fan boy and thinks he needs to get off drugs and twitter)

Reduce cost, raise prices to match competitors. Deliver cheap to make, questionable looks, truck at luxury truck prices. Customer gets the look, but Tesla pockets the cost benefits.

No thanks. I’m keeping the R1T.

Sponsored

 

[mini2nut]

Official exterior dimensions and revised MSRP pricing for the production Cybertruck has not been released for competitive reasons. All comments regarding both is pure speculation.

 

[CharonPDX]

Those are 2 door trucks. Compare the crew cab F150s for an apples to apples comparison.

In order to get an F150 the length of a Cybertruck, you have to choose the shorter 5.5 ft bed. If you want an F150 with a comparable cab and bed to the Cybertruck, you would have to buy a crew cab with 6.5 ft bed, which is about 11 inches longer than the Cybertruck.

The Cybertruck should probably be compared to an F-250+. Which is available with Crew Cab and 8' box. Overall length 266.2 in.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Whatever you say, granola muncher.

Sorry bro I can’t hear you from way back there. Plus I’m a pretty big dude, I don’t get mistaken for a granola muncher too often lol

 

[lucent]

This argument only makes sense if the Cybertruck turns out to cost a lot less than the Lightning or R1T.

If it's similar in cost, then it was a failed exercise in cost reduction which consumers are left with an ugly truck instead of something more traditional and functional.

If it actually does cost less and Tesla sells it for a similar price, then you are simply giving Tesla more money so they make higher margins and still buying an ugly truck.

If this truck isn't a lot cheaper, then they have failed. They would have been much better off building a more traditional design that fits the Tesla design language.

Let's be honest. If they had built a truck that looks more the like rendering below, it would have been much better received. Instead they created a very polarizing design which may end up being their first flop.

I'm not sure how you would call that monstrosity in-line with Tesla's design language. Again I don't think the cheese wedge is good looking either so lol.

It's gone essentially unnoticed that the Austin model Y with the structural battery pack is not significantly lighter than the the Fremont Model Y. So no benefit so far from that innovation.

But Tesla has no reason to pass cost savings on to customers. Musk projecting a low cost Model 3 and then a low cost Cybertruck was simply anxiety about demand as Tesla planned to build high volume.

On the flip side the lack of positive margins on the R1 may doom Rivian. It's easy to build popular products when cost exceeds revenue. Musk's genius is in making a profit in cleantech.

Yes but you're comparing a highly refined and iterated battery pack with a first iteration structural battery pack. There's room for improvements.

 

[ERguy]

The Cybertruck should probably be compared to an F-250+. Which is available with Crew Cab and 8' box. Overall length 266.2 in.

Why? The F250 is far bigger than the Cybertruck, especially with an 8 ft bed and length of 266". That's 2.5 feet longer than the Cybertruck.

Heck even the F150 with a 6.5 ft bed is bigger than the Cybertruck.

The Cybertruck is not nearly as big as people make it out to me.

 

[CharonPDX]

Why? The F250 is far bigger than the Cybertruck, especially with an 8 ft bed and length of 266". That's 2.5 feet longer than the Cybertruck.

Heck even the F150 with a 6.5 ft bed is bigger than the Cybertruck.

The Cybertruck is not nearly as big as people make it out to me.

Because we're comparing crew cab vehicles with an 8' bed. That's the point - the Cybertruck is tiny for an 8' bed crew cab vehicle.

 

[sacramentoelectric]

Because we're comparing crew cab vehicles with an 8' bed. That's the point - the Cybertruck is tiny for an 8' bed crew cab vehicle.

It has a 6.5’ bed.

 

[kizamybute']

I expect it to be more efficient and possibly more durable that the R1. Anyone else like it who is not a potential buyer?

I wouldn't bet on it being more efficient. Tesla inflates their range estimates to be figures that can be obtained only under the best case scenarios. I've posted multiple times now, for the same road trips, my Rivian well out performs my prior Tesla's in terms of range. Most notably, I get close to the rated range in the Rivian at "go with the flow" traffic speeds, meaning 75-80 on most long trips. The Tesla, at the same speeds, was lucky to get 70-75% of the rated range.

On road trips, I get about 2.3 to 2.4 miles per / wh. In the Tesla, at the same speeds, I got around 2.7 to 2.8. That was with one of the most aerodynamic cars ever made and that weighed over 2,000 lbs less. The Cybertruck is a big vehicle and will weigh a lot more than the Model S or Model X.

Should start a separate thread and take bets on what people think today. My opinion is that the Rivian will be more efficient on "real world" road trips than the Cybertruck. If the Model S gets 2.7 to 2.8, the Cybertruck will likely be in the 2.1 to 2.2 mi/wh range if averaging 75 to 80 MPH on the freeway. Come back in three years and read this again once the Cybertruck is actually produced and can be tested. I'm betting my numbers will be fairly accurate. Simply based on first-hand experience with multiple Tesla's over the past 9-10 years. If it's really rated for 500 miles in range, which I doubt it will be, actual range will be closer to 362 miles. If Rivian releases the max pack battery, it will likely get at least that much range, if not better and will do so with a smaller battery.

Rivian, somehow, on their first try, did an amazing job at efficiency for a 7,000 lb brick moving down the road. Cybertruck will be better aerodynamically, but don't believe it will match the Rivian in miles per wh efficiency.

(And yes, I said come back in three years. Given Tesla's track record, it will likely be that long before Cybertrucks are in actual owner driveways). They still haven't finished development of their new battery tech. Semi-Truck and Roadster are good examples of vehicles that were due years ago and we're still waiting.

 

[zipzag]

Tesla gets its higher range rating from the non-highway driving portion of the test. Long drives on the highway is the only time owners have simplified metrics to judge the vehicle. The excessive weight of Rivian is paid for every day by owners in real world driving.

Part of the issue of releasing max pack may be the weight of the vehicle after adding the cells, under shield and winch. How much GVWR remains? I expect CT to do considerably better than Rivian in vehicle weights and payload.

Tesla hasn't release CT because they don't have the capacity. Tesla doesn't have the capacity because they are selling vast numbers of EVs at high margins. If Rivian couldn't release the R2 because the second plant was needed to fulfill R1 demand it also would not be a problem.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Tesla gets its higher range rating from the non-highway driving portion of the test. Long drives on the highway is the only time owners have simplified metrics to judge the vehicle. The excessive weight of Rivian is paid for every day by owners in real world driving.

Part of the issue of releasing max pack may be the weight of the vehicle after adding the cells, under shield and winch. How much GVWR remains? I expect CT to do considerably better than Rivian in vehicle weights and payload.

Tesla hasn't release CT because they don't have the capacity. Tesla doesn't have the capacity because they are selling vast numbers of EVs at high margins. If Rivian couldn't release the R2 because the second plant was needed to fulfill R1 demand it also would not be a problem.

If that were true where is the roadster? That’s got to be their highest margin vehicle to date. If Tesla was only worried about that and margin was the key to what they built they would be cranking through their 500k dollar roadsters.

 

[zipzag]

If that were true where is the roadster? That’s got to be their highest margin vehicle to date. If Tesla was only worried about that and margin was the key to what they built they would be cranking through their 500k dollar roadsters.

The roadster is the least profitable vehicle they could make. But it is like not finished becuase the tech isn't ready. The CT, like the Austin Model Y, may be released without the battery pack in the form that was Tesla's original target.

 

[NY_Rob]

The Austin Model Y's do have the 4680 structural battery pack.. but the cells are not exactly the ones Elon promised on battery Day 2020 yet. They are 4680 size and tabless, but still use standard 811 nickel-manganese-cobalt mixture for the cathodes and ordinary graphite anodes, and they are not "dry cell" technology. Elon promised a high-nickel cathode and silicon anode.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/First...hat-revolutionary-at-the-moment.653519.0.html

 

[Avera]

I have both CT and R1T on order. CT will be better engineered then Rivian, as Tesla has more design and manufacturing experience. But Rivian is catching up with Munro help.
Can't wait to see CT in person. I have seen R1T in person and like it. But there are people that do not like R1T oval lights, but to each his own.
I am not Elon fan but without him we would not be here talking about Rivian or Tesla. Regardless of the looks, each EV means one less ICE car. I would rather see "ugly" CT on the road then ICE truck.

 

[CharonPDX]

It has a 6.5’ bed.

Oh, I thought it was supposed to be an 8' bed.

Sponsored