[thatswrong0]

Unnecessarily exposing innards doesn't feel brutalist to me. Covering up the innards is a functional requirement of being a reliable car - you don't want the engine exposed to the elements, for example. You don't want to expose the driver to rain and snow. You don't want to have the frame rust. A huge part of brutalism is not letting design compromise functioning of the object and not hiding the materials that compose the object.

Buildings that are considered brutalist still have walls and a roof, because you know, a building being covered by a roof and having walls is what creates room and space inside. There'd be no point to building it otherwise. But they don't worry about hiding the ductwork and piping inside because hiding it doesn't add to the functionality of the building.

In the cybertruck, the use of unpainted stainless steel is letting the inherent useful properties of the material shine - that's certainly brutalist. The material being difficult to work with is what created the harsh angles in the silhouette - again, that's brutalist.

[spectramax]

I agree with you mostly - slight contradiction you say "Unncessarily" and then talk about the functional use of those covers to prevent water and snow ingress. I think what I was alluding to is that a piece of cover for 100% decorative use - no safety, functional or any reason but to make things look nice. That is the "guilt". :)

Definitely agree, unpainted stainless steel is a brutalist trait.

[thatswrong0]

I suppose then you could argue about the inside of the car, as that is where most of the unnecessary covering would exist.