[agar]

The original poster specifically compares it to a roof tent. Obviously since the Cybertruck has no normal roof, the definition is strained here.

However, from what I've seen "bed tents" have you sleeping on the bed. This product has a raised frame that performs similarly to a roof tent (given the CT's angled design); allowing you to store equipment in the bed when the tent is up or down. See image here: https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/03/IMG_6...

[cogman10]

And you really think this aluminum raised frame is worth $2500?

The only reason this is compared to a roof tent is because that's the most expensive vehicle tent on the market.

However, at the end of the day we are talking about an aluminum frame and some uninsulated canvas.

A quick Google shows you can get an "elevated to roof level" rack for $1400. So this is a $1600 tent?

No matter how you slice this, it's a rip off.

[agar]

As I said in my OP, I'm not well versed in this market - so I don't know what it's worth. But people keep replying with factually inaccurate information and that's frustrating.

Do I personally think it's worth $2,975? No. But I'm not in the market for one.

Honestly almost everything in the automotive aftermarket seems like a rip off to me, so it's hard to be objective. Your example of $1,400 for an "elevated to roof level" rack sounds like a rip off. Yeah, if 8 pieces of welded aluminum cost $1,400 then maybe $1,600 for custom-sized low volume tent is about right. Ford sells folding tonneau covers for $1,100. A tow hitch for a Lexus GX is $330. This is all extortionate. But millions in this market continue to pay the costs and find the value is worth it.

Can you find something cheaper on Amazon? Of course. But in the first-party world of $300 tow hitches and $1,100 pieces of hinged plastic, is $3K a lot? I don't know. The original reviewer says, "I think that much of the thoughtful and unique design elements might warrant the cost: it’s fairly lightweight + easy to install/remove the stowed tent from the truck, stays out of the way (unless you want to transport multiple bikes in the bed), doesn’t reduce range due to decreased aerodynamics, and has intuitive pieces that make setup + takedown a breeze." Of course this was omitted from Elektrek's copy/paste of the original review.

But I don't think the discussion is really about the appropriate cost for the Basecamp, which is what I'm really interested in. I'm reading a lot more emotion in this comment section than seems warranted for a tent.

[cogman10]

> But people keep replying with factually inaccurate information and that's frustrating.

What did I say that's factually inaccurate?

> I'm reading a lot more emotion in this comment section than seems warranted for a tent.

I'm sorry, what? I simply stated how much an elevated platform costs and you are reading a lot of emotion into that?

Look at how much you just wrote that could have been summed up as

> Do I personally think it's worth $2,975? No.

Ok, so then why are you spending so much time and effort trying to sell this and justify the price tag?

I agree, the market is irrational and the ultimate proof of this product's worth is if people will buy it. That, however, isn't a question you are I can answer at this time. The best we can do is come up with our best equivalent examples and subjective opinions "is this worth it". Which you and I both agree "no".

> But I don't think the discussion is really about the appropriate cost for the Basecamp, which is what I'm really interested in.

Does not seem like you care much about cost. Instead, I see a bunch of accusations in your response about the motives of people responding to you.

Perhaps some self reflection is in order.

[agar]

Apologies for the misunderstanding, I thought I was clear but apparently not. Most of my comment was a reaction to the overall comment thread and not to you specifically.

> "people keep replying with factually inaccurate information"

If I was referring to you, I would have said so and quoted you directly.

> "this comment section"

Again, that's significantly broader than "your comment" - the comment section to this article looks a lot more like a Reddit thread than an HN thread, and that's not a compliment. Nor is it a direct commentary on your post.

I'm not trying to "sell this and justify the price tag." I'm really trying to understand the pricing dynamics and whether -- outside of emotion -- if reactions to the price are really justified.

Let me make a tech example. Someone says "I just got quoted $1m for an Oracle DB, is that fair?" and everyone replies, "that's BS, Postgres is free!"

That's not a nuanced discussion and may not be helpful. So if you really want to understand, you have to "push back" and ask questions. "What do other closed-source vendors charge, to get a direct comparison?" "Is Postgres really functionally equivalent?" "You define equivalency this way, but Oracle says it has these other differentiators. So are they really equivalent?" etc.

So when you compared it to a "bed tent" and I saw what looked like a fundamental difference between this and a bed tent, I pushed back. And my comment about 1st party costs goes back to my original question's premise, which is: is "rip off" justified in the context of 1st party aftermarket products like this?

Your comment wasn't necessarily emotionally charged (and again, I never said it was, I was talking about the dumpster fire of Elon hate the entire comment section turned into), but it didn't really answer the question in the context I was looking for either. Comparing the cost of a component off of Amazon to a custom fully-integrated product from the manufacturer shortly after product launch really doesn't seem like apples-to-apples.

No need to reply to this. I'm not looking for an argument, just trying to better explain the discussion I was looking for. I've already mostly satisfied my curiosity through various searches and a bit of further education.

I do remain a bit frustrated though that the OP didn't link the far better original source review instead of blogspam. I think it might have been a much better discussion. That's not frustration out of some loyalty to Tesla, it's because HN has some of the highest signal:noise ratios of the forums I read, and it's disappointing when it's manipulated into an emotional response. To be clear, that's in no way your fault and also not a reflection on your comment - just me explaining my "response about the motives of people responding to you."