[jdkdnfndnfjd]

This whole article and it’s sentiment is wrong. It’s a good example of a person who is not capable of thinking from first principles or who never watched the reveal. Which describes basically everyone’s reaction to the truck.

What is a truck? A utilitarian vehicle. Does aesthetics add utility to the vehicle? No. Does it cost lots of money to make the car look swoopy? Yes. Does it increase the utility to give the vehicle an exoskeleton rather than a traditional frame? Yes. Should we make the car swoopy instead of making it an exoskeleton? No.

Literally every logical angle points to doing what they did. They maximized utility and minimized cost. Is this a good formula for a regular car? No! Is this a good formula for a utility vehicle? Yes! Are there lots of idiots out there who like to daily drive “utility vehicles” for their commute? Yes!

Doug D reviews the car and said it costs too much. But he only ever compared the upfront cost of the trucks. You save money on fuel and maintenance with an ev, and his omission of that was glaring.

People saying strong glass is bad because first responders. If I want to have strong glass then that’s my right. And living in the sf Bay Area, I don’t just want strong glass I fucking need strong glass. Elon musk shared a video on twitter of the glass resisting a 1kg steel ball being thrown at it. When it broke on stage it was a fluke. And 9mm resistance would also be really nice. Apparently Doug D never visited Oakland.

[danans]

> Does aesthetics add utility to the vehicle? No

If you don't think there wasn't a ton of thought put into the aesthetics of the cybertruck, you don't understand how cars are designed. It's not a design that emerges from pure functionalism at all. Pure functionalism is a bus or a train, a dump truck, or a goods delivery vehicle, like the kind that brings beer to a corner store. I say that as someone who would probably buy a cybertruck.

> Apparently Doug D never visited Oakland.

Leave Oakland out of it. You wouldn't believe it but children play on the streets here without wearing any body armor at all.

[kortilla]

> You wouldn't believe it but children play on the streets here without wearing any body armor at all.

Doesn’t mean it’s smart. Oakland might be safe but children playing on the streets without body armor isn’t an argument because the same can be said for most war zones.

[cma]

> Literally every logical angle points to doing what they did

How about drag coefficient?

> When it broke on stage it was a fluke.

It didn't break on stage in isolation. Two broke. Tesla armor glass was already claimed years ago to survive a nuclear blast (Tesla Semi reveal). It seems to be marketing.

[jdkdnfndnfjd]

It’s used for towing large and high drag trailers and off-roading. It was definitely a good call to prioritize other things. If you want to do a road trip then use a 3 or an s.

There are like five video clips online of the glass withstanding greater impacts. Tough glass is not science fiction. It is well within the capabilities of anybody to take some bullet proof glass or thick poly carb and stick it in the window. So saying that this glass is all marketing doesn’t make any sense. Literally anyone could do it. Many already do. It isn’t a new thing. People get tougher glass installed after market literally all the time.

[cma]

Bullet proof glass would add thousands of pounds. This is the same gimmick glass from the Tesla Semi reveal, there the gimmick was that it was nuclear blast proof, which any glass is when far enough away from the blast.

[jdkdnfndnfjd]

The vehicle already weights 6k. And it wouldn’t add thousands. Polycarbonate would weigh a lot less. Bullet proof glass is designed for bullets and weighs a lot. Just replacing TV the glass with polycarbonate would make them virtually unbreakable and weigh a lot less.

Elon musk tweeted a joke that Tesla semi glass will withstand a nuclear blast or you get a full refund. It was a joke dude. You are really dumb.

What he actually claimed is that the glass won’t crack if a small rock hits it. The cost of the tougher glass is less than the average cost of downtime caused by cracked windshields. Truckers aren’t allowed to drive with cracks. So in reality there is some really straightforward logic behind the glass.