Hacker News

points by fouc 4 days ago | 0 comments

I think Cybertruck's mistake ultimately boils down to the bed design - it just wasn't practical enough.

Not a truck guy by any means but I wouldn’t want any other truck’s bed after having the cybertruck’s. The motorized tonneau cover and sloped roof adds a lot of volume to what a normal truck bed provides. It’s made the difference from having exposed camping/lake gear to having all of it protected and sheltered from the elements. Now I see my friends’ truck beds and rib them a bit about how petite their storage space is.

[–] jwilcoxson 3 days ago

That’s called a topper or a SUV.

[–] olyjohn 3 days ago

Except this is an SUV with a sloped roof that loses tons of potential capacity. That said, I have seen toppers on Cybertrucks so if you need the enclosed capacity, you can get it like a regular trick. But the truth is, the Cybertruck and Rivian are not trucks first. They are lifestyle vehicles that can do some truck things.

[–] jwilcoxson 3 days ago

I agree, anyone serious about a truck isn’t getting a Rivian or Cybertruck.

[–] panick21_ 3 days ago

You could literally buy a fucking van. Much larger volume, much easier to load.

Since when is a fucking roof for storage in your car revolutionary? Its only revolutionary if you are brain-rotted in accepting pickup trucks as the norm.

[–] stonogo 3 days ago

We already had SUVs.

[–] avgDev 3 days ago

You should see the storage in my Honda Pilot.

[–] tw04 3 days ago

Ignoring how ugly they are, its ultimate mistake was Elon blatantly lying about final specs when he started taking pre-orders. The starting price was going to be under $40k, and the highest end model was going to be under $70k with 520 miles of range.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/tesla-cybertruck-unveiled.ht...

What they released cost just under $100k with 320 miles of range (which means actually like 260-270 when you don’t use Tesla’s inflated number).

At 520 miles of range you can actually consider towing a boat to a cabin without having to stop. Heck maybe even get back home. At 320 it’s just a non starter to use it to tow anything that isn’t just around town.

I know the HN crowd like to joke that people just buy trucks to commute, but most folks that own one want to at least have the option to tow something without having to constantly deal with range anxiety.

[–] cucumber3732842 4 days ago

I think it was doomed from the start being essentially the biggest thing in the Baja->Maverick-Ridgeling market segment.

I think they crossed a size threshold where they lost most of the upsides of that "not a traditional truck" market segment and gained a lot of the inconvenient downsides of the traditional half ton and larger truck market segment.

Then again, it's not like the Ford/Chevy/Rivian equivalents are flying off the shelves...

[–] dzhiurgis 4 days ago

What is so unpractical about it? Other than slope around the bed (can't access easily from sides if you are short) - it's about the same as other EV trucks - whose biggest problem is sadly still batteries (I'm sure it's fine as everyday trucks, but I feel truck drivers don't wanna be seen as everyday drivers I guess?)

[–] bigfatkitten 4 days ago

The fact you can’t take it off and replace it with a flat tray or a service body, for a start.

[–] db48x 4 days ago

The number of people who actually do that is miniscule.

[–] bigfatkitten 3 days ago

The number of people (and in particular, fleet operators) who do that in Australia and NZ is extremely high.

Ford Ranger Super Duty wasn’t even available with a factory tub at launch, and the Toyota Landcruiser 79 doesn’t have one at all.

[–] dzhiurgis 3 days ago

Why would you want that on EV chassis tho? The range is going to be terrible. Batteries for RVs simply aren't there yet.

I get it - it would be amazing from maintenance and economy perspective, especially on fleets. But for private owners and campervan hirers it makes little sense. Even something like V2L on most EVs suck for even weekend camping, let alone a whole week.

[–] bigfatkitten 3 days ago

> Why would you want that on EV chassis tho?

Because you want to install equipment such as air compressors, pumps, welders, cranes or water tanks, or you want to carry bulky items like ladders, and/or you need accessible and ergonomic lockers, drawers etc to store your tools and equipment without having to dig around the tub.

Same reasons as you’d do this on an ICE truck.

[–] db48x 3 days ago

I’ll say it again. The number of people _in the market segment Tesla is aiming the Cybertruck at_ who do that kind of thing is miniscule. Fleet trucks for plumbers or whatever were never a consideration; those users are outside the target audience for the Cybertruck.

[–] bamboozled 4 days ago

This and the stupid new "flying car" really remind me of "The Homer" from The Simpsons [1].

[1] https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer

[–] vrighter 4 days ago

you mean the flying car that was demonstrated on stage as already literally not what he was talking about right in front of it? The one that clearly showed that the stuff that should have been on the underside just.... wasn't? And the demo was different cars doing the different stunts? The one with a 5 second fuel tank that takes 7 hours to refill? That flying car?

Lol I found that presentation so hilarious.

[–] heaney-555 3 days ago

>The one that clearly showed that the stuff that should have been on the underside just.... wasn't?

That just isn't true. That conclusion is based on a single compressed screenshot from a low-quality compressed version of the livestream.

There are high-quality photographs taken by the people there that show its underside is entirely normal.

[–] panick21_ 3 days ago

No matter what the truth of that, the 'flying car' is not a product. They didn't commit to selling it. So its pointless to even argue about it.

[–] bamboozled 3 days ago

Thunderf00t was amazing at covering this thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdZ9MxtPBRY

[–] m463 3 days ago

lol. sarcasm?

Yes, the elephant in the room is the "cutting edge styling".

I drove one as a loaner and I had all kinds of curiosity, but I didn't want anyone seeing me get in and out of it.

I think it was kind of like a pt cruiser, where the designers thought they were recreating the old style trucks, but to the public it was an acquired taste. A very acquired taste.

The bed design is actually kind of interesting. But I thought they demo'd that it could squat down like a loading ramp and I don't think that materialized.

[–] fouc 3 days ago

Not completely sarcasm, I left unsaid that the bed design is a result of the "cutting edge styling", they would've had to change the styling on the back side at the very least to make a bit more practical truck.

And I think they should have moderated the style on the back. Gone for more of a mullet LOL.

[–] olyjohn 3 days ago

Yeah except the PT cruiser is actually a good practical design, with a low floor entry height, and comfortable upright seating and pretty good cargo capacity and decent fuel economy. Its certainly more useful than today's crossovers. And was a sales success. They sold tons of them. The thing is, they thought it would appeal to young buyers, but it was mostly older people who flocked to them in droves. The PT Cruiser community also was massive, and their owners loved them. They were also mechanically simple and cheap to repair, being built on the Neon platform. It was a well thought out vehicle, and not just a gimmick. Even if you don't like the retro styling. I give Chrysler props for it.