[kube-system]

It's a choice. All engineering choices have consequences, and no material is perfect. It doesn't seem much more absurd than other parts of the vehicle, to me. Bare stainless has been used on other vehicles before. It provides a certain aesthetic.

[Zigurd]

It is a choice. The choice is also motivated by a Big Idea: ELiminate every part you don't need. This sounds like a good idea to the point some people will adopt it uncritically, but when you start eliminating parts, like paint, or an anti-pinch sensor, or LIDAR, that you might actually need, you just create technical debt and future recall liability. Bad dogma.

[Alupis]

To be pedantic, this was more of a cosmetic choice rather than an engineering choice.

The other bare stainless vehicles learned the same lesson (and are not produced today).

[kube-system]

Engineers deal with more than just functional design requirements. There were also undoubtably other requirements pertaining to manufacturing, cost, and cosmetics which were a factor here. If cost and manufacturing weren't a factor, they could have just CNC'd the panels out of very fancy stainless grades that are a pain to stamp and cost a lot.

[Alupis]

I think the issue is they decided what it should look like before they designed the rest of the vehicle. They wanted something that looked unusual... and now they have unusual problems to deal with.

There's no practical reason to make the vehicle have bare stainless panels, or "unbreakable" breakable windows, etc. It's marketing gimmicks that now seem to be developing into a PR issue. Time will tell..

The very fact that they try to upsell a wrap is absurd enough and obviously indicates Tesla was worried this might become an issue. The wrap should have been included... or some form of coating.

[kube-system]

Other manufacturers also make new engineering choices in the name of styling that create unusual problems. Because selling the car is part of the design requirements.

As one of many examples, Mazda's Soul Red Crystal paint has some special formulations and application steps that were a departure from other types of automotive paint. It has no purpose other than cosmetics, and it had some issues when it was introduced. It was also more challenging and expensive to repair.

Styling may be a 'marketing gimmick', but it is an inherent requirement to selling cars in volume.

> The very fact that they try to upsell a wrap is absurd enough and obviously indicates Tesla was worried this might become an issue.

Some other manufacturers do this for painted cars too, because clear-coat is brittle and chipping is a known cosmetic issue that can occur.

e.g. https://autoparts.toyota.com/products/product/paint-protecti...

At the end of the day, I don't think it's any more unacceptable that cybertruck owners need to hit their truck with some scotchbrite to remove tiny rust specs than it is unacceptable that toyota owners need to hit their hood with some touch up paint to remove tiny paint chips. It's all just minor cosmetic wear and tear.

[Alupis]

> At the end of the day, I don't think it's any more unacceptable that cybertruck owners need to hit their truck with some scotchbrite to remove tiny rust specs than it is unacceptable that toyota owners need to hit their hood with some touch up paint to remove tiny paint chips.

I'd argue both are unacceptable, and sure enough you'll find plenty of complaints from owners with chipped paint.

The difference is, the rust issue was predictable.

> Because selling the car is part of the design requirements.

> it is an inherent requirement to selling cars in volume

Let's not kid ourselves here - it's a Tesla truck and it would have sold in similar numbers even if it didn't look like something out of a video game. It may have actually sold better if it's design wasn't so divisive...

The reality is a bunch of people are buying/have bought this particular vehicle expecting luxury/premium and instead are being surprised by rust. Hence... the negative PR.