Tesla (VP Vehicle Engineering) says Cybertruck likely to not make it to Europe
topgear.comGood, after seen Marques' review on youtube last thing I would want is to be involved in a crash with a cybertruck. Those angles and steel plates will cause gruesome consequences for everyone involved in such an accident. Happy to see our regulation working.
This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxOh12Uhg08
"I just can't see the front of the car".
Oh yeah, this will work out great.
Elon designed it himself, didn't he?
The whole video is a gold mine for "asshole design."
- No door handles, press a button and pull the metal railing to open the door
- No rear-view mirror, use the console to see what's behind you
- Your driving speed is no longer in front of the steering wheel, it's in the console
- Your glove box doesn't have a manual latch, dig into settings to open the glove box
- The gear shifter is in the console or above you
Seems like Elon went full contrarian when designing the car.
> No door handles, press a button and pull the metal railing to open the door
Certain Fiats in the 1980s had an arrangement where, rather than a door handle, you'd push a button and the door would pop open. It is... not a car feature I would necessarily have expected to reappear in 2023.
“$500 phone with no appeal to business users, pffft”
Half this stuff has been standard tesla design for a while and are typically liked by Tesla drivers -
- no door handles
- driving speed on center console
- glove box controlled by console
- gear shift not in-between driver/passenger
Contrarian I guess.... but not bad
Also "no rear view mirror" - it was clearly stated in the video that is only for the production test model and real production models will have rear and side view mirrors.
The rear view mirror was there, but the view was blocked by the tonneau cover.
Which does seem unfortunate to me.
> "I just can't see the front of the car".
> Oh yeah, this will work out great.
It seems to me that the Cybertruck has less of a blind spot in front of the hood than F-150. The "not seeing the front" is actually hinting at this, it's below the field of vision. The hood angles down agressively vs. huge
Large trucks/SUVs are infamous for poor pedestrian visibility right in front.
Edit: this graphic (https://cdn.carbuzz.com/gallery-images/1600/1140000/800/1140...) comes to mind.
He also designed the windshield wiper of doom. Which is ridiculous as well.
I'm picturing that trying to move with a few inches of wet snow. It's a great visual.
Also, can you imagine the cost of that as a consumable that should usually be replaced every month or three?
1. No one uses their windshield wipers to remove a few inches of wet snow; you yourself do that beforehand
2. Wiper blades normally last longer than that
3. I still hate everything about that car
At the Cybertruck launch event, Musk suggested that it’s designed to destroy the other vehicle in a crash situation.
A car like that probably would have a hard time getting certified in Europe.
In general, the market for trucks in Europe is pretty much non existent. Just not a thing here. Blue collar workers use normal cars and vans here with a cheap trailer if they need to move lots of stuff/garbage/sand etc. Anything with a high fuel consumption is a non starter for commercial usage given the fuel cost. Besides, big vehicles just aren't very practical on narrow roads, in dense cities, etc.
Getting this thing approved for safety reasons might also be a challenge. I'd say a lot of people don't really want these things anywhere near pedestrians, children, or cyclists; all of which are very common in European traffic.
There's a market, it's tiny compared to the USA but I've seen bigger trucks like the Dodge RAM, Ford F-250, and similar peppered around Stockholm's area more affluent neighbourhoods/municipalities.
When I lived in Huddinge (a higher income municipality with lots of villas/detached houses) it seemed like 1 every 5 houses had at least one of those trucks parked in their garage, some had 2 or more. Same around the Danderyd area...
I've noticed the uptick in larger trucks, and bigger SUVs around the streets here for the past 4-5 years.
I really hope this trend doesn't continue, it sucks.
Yeah, we have those in Finland too. They're all for pavement princesses. They're always immaculately detailed, not a scratch, dent or dirt stain on them.
If people need a "truck" for actual work, they'll get a Toyota Hilux. And even those tend to have a hard shell over the bed essentially making it a van with huge ground clearance.
Throughout Europe, total sale of _all_ pickup trucks is about 100k/year. US annual sales are in the region of 2 to 3 million.
It will continue unless we legislate against it. There are many things that can be done.
As long as we don't incentivise them like they (accidentally?) did in the US by having large enough vehicles be exempt from most environmental regulations...
It is not important for it to make it to Europe. It is for American's who want to play cowboy. Europe pickup TAM is tiny.
https://web.archive.org/web/20231203153448/https://i.ibb.co/...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38491312 (f150 sales citations)
https://www.autonews.com/sales/pickups-europeans-say-thanks-...
*)Rich Americans
Everyone can be rich with easy credit and the repo/used car cycle. Americans overextend themselves for $50k-$100k pickups just fine. You can dislike the reality, but don't operate for how you wish the world was, operate for how it is today.
You mean everyone can pretend to be rich.
They can. Does it matter? Works until it doesn't. Don't be holding the bag when the music stops and it isn't your problem. Manage credit risk my good friend! The topic of appearance of wealth and actual wealth is for another thread.
So my position is clear, I want a better world, but am also pragmatic about the fish bowl I live in current state. If Americans, who are responsible for 35% of global gasoline consumption, want to buy trucks, sell them EVs. I cannot tell them not to buy trucks. I cannot make trucks smaller. I cannot build pedestrian friendly urban cores in any reasonable timeframe. I cannot tell them to be financially responsible. Free will and all that. Don't complain about levers that don't exist or that you can't pull, pull hard on levers you can.
"Look at that Cybertruck. Wouldn't you look cool in that?"
https://martecgroup.com/emotional-car-buying-journey/
(i know, everything is terrible, welcome to the shit show; first time?)
> If Americans, who are responsible for 35% of global gasoline consumption, want to buy trucks, sell them EVs. I cannot tell them not to buy trucks.
Then why can the automakers tell them to buy trucks? If you can't tell them not to, why is it ok for automakers to use marketing to artificially generate such desires?
Corporate freedom of speech? This is America.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speec...
That's not being rich. That's being in debt.
Agree I should've picked my word more carefully there. The only difference between those with actual wealth and those cosplaying is the window of time in which you can experience the benefits of the consumption. Catches up faster to those operating off of debt instead of wealth, but depending on your current state and life trajectory, that may not matter to you.
No one wants to be rich to be rich, for an arbitrary number in their bank or brokerage account. They want to be rich for some combination of freedom, power, status, and consumption. If you can get that with debt instead of some sort of wealth, there you go.
Makes me wonder if NHTSA tests not only the performance of a vehicle in terms of protecting its occupants, but also the performance of the vehicle in terms of what it does to any other vehicles it might come into contact with.
I assume they do some testing for vehicle vs. pedestrian or vehicle vs. cyclist, but would they run a Cybertruck into a Toyota Camry to see how the outcome compares for both vehicles compared to running an F-150 into the same Camry?
> I assume they do some testing for vehicle vs. pedestrian
No they don't.
I don't think testing against other cars exists either.
This higher mass would mean that any collision with a lighter vehicle could be very serious. European regulators would just need one look at the cars specs, and would dismiss it outright.
Due to the apparent lack of crumple zones, it will probably also destroy its passengers on impact.
That’s not how crash tests work. To be able to get the vehicle certified, they drive the car into concrete barriers at a variety of angles and evaluate dummies for injuries. If the injuries are too severe, then the car will fail. In addition, there must be mitigations in place for what happens to wheels/engines in a crash scenario. If the engine immediately gets flung out of the engine bay, it will fail. Yes, I understand this is an electric vehicle.
In reality, modern cars are extremely safe (as much as a 2 ton hunk of metal can be).
Now, this calculation may be different for other vehicles involved in an accident with a cybertruck, but in reality, a concrete barrier is much harder than even this ugly slab of steel. The other cars are also engineered to absorb the same impacts.
Arguably the most vulnerable party in a cybertruck accident is a civilian located outside of a vehicle.
So where are the test results for the Cybertruck? Most modern cars are built in somewhat similar ways, Cybertruck is a huge outlier in construction. So I think it is very reasonable to ask whether that affects the safety of the vehicle.
If you some of the video you can see some of the Tests. You will find the data in the same place you find it for all vehicle. At some point an official rating will be published. Given that every single Tesla vehicle has been getting elite ratings, Cybertruck will likely get the same.
I'm really curious how the results of crash tests will turn out here. Crumple zones are a really important safety feature, and I can't imagine the Cybertruck will fare well without them.
people dont realize that crumpled/bended material absorbs crash energy. Its a good thing as that energy is not transferred into a passengers, well apparently musk is one of those people
Which, a car whose specs were written in crayon and largely made up?
Did he say designed to destroy or would destroy the other vehicle?
Saying designed to destroy denotes intent.
He said that it's expressly designed to turn minivans into scrap metal and hamburger meat on the turnpike, then laughed maniacally.
You are taking it out of context. Following that he said Eff the police 420 blaze it and took a bite out of a baby.
is this a joke or not. Hard to say when discussing musk
Do you have the video source link for that? Thanks
I mean, that's all you need to know about this guy's maturity level.
Sarcasm often doesn't do well here (for good reason, there's a signal:noise expectation) but it's still surprising that sibling comments are taking this seriously.
Source: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/the-tesla-cybertruck-fi...
According to the article he "implied".
Another source and direct quote:
"If you’re ever in an argument with another car, you will win,” Musk told his fans at the delivery event in its Texas factory in Austin. “Here at Tesla we have the finest in apocalypse technology."
*https://fortune.com/2023/12/01/cybertruck-elon-musk-tesla-de...
yea, unfortunately ars doesn't have the best track record with musk related news
Ok, maybe a direct quote from another source will suffice?
“If you’re ever in an argument with another car, you will win,” Musk told his fans at the delivery event in its Texas factory in Austin. “Here at Tesla we have the finest in apocalypse technology.”
*https://fortune.com/2023/12/01/cybertruck-elon-musk-tesla-de...
It is worth calling out that Jonathan Gitlin has a history of regularly injecting editorial bias against Tesla/Musk in his reporting and might not be neutral.
That is good news. Additionally, I would appreciate any kind of steps taken to make it unviable to drive any other US-style truck here as well.
I absolutely agree. I live in Prague and a guy on my street owns a Dodge Ram (I think that's what it is, I'm not a car guy). It sticks out far into the street or occupies a large amount of the pavement when it's parked. It struggles to make turns on the narrower roads. I really wish we would ban the import of cars above a certain size, they're dangerous and inconvenient for everyone else in the city.
If it sticks out onto the street or the pavement, can you call the non-emergency police number to get that guy a ticket?
Quote: Lars Moravy boils it down to two other things: “One, the truck market in the US is huge and two, European regulations call for a 3.2mm external radius on external projections. Unfortunately, it's impossible to make a 3.2mm radius on a 1.4mm sheet of stainless steel.”
"3.2mm external radius on external projections" does this translates to "you have to have rounded corners" in plain language?
Exactly. You don't want pedestrians and cyclists being impaled or decapitated on the sharp and pointy edges of your car in case of accidents.
This isn't Mad Max or a zombie apocalypse to warrant such design choices on the road.
I'm surprised that it's legal in the US.
> I'm surprised that it's legal in the US.
It's okay, the Cybertruck is for the wealthy and as we all know they are more important. The poors who it will kill can barely be considered people so who cares?
Even better, the truck may on its on volition decide to take some of the poors out without the driver's input.
It seems to me like someone is designing these for the war zone in their head.
This all started with the bio-attack mode on the ModelX. Now we have bullet proof windows, armor plating, and sharp edges. What’s next a retractable Gatling gun? Will people bat an eye?
I wouldn't be surprised if Elon designed these as a getaway vehicle should the poors decide to rise up.
Need a Mad Max car to take you to your escape rocket - now all of his endeavors make sense!
> What’s next a retractable Gatling gun?
If you need a high rate of fire and are space/weight/power constrained, you might be better served by using a Gast gun design, like the GSh-23. You don't get to the same max rate of fire, but you also don't need to spin up the barrels or use an external power source to drive the gun.
Yep
So Lars Moravy's second quote is wrong?
Not only is it a danger to pedestrians "brushing" up against its sharp edges:
"Musk implied that in a crash with another vehicle, the Cybertruck—which weighs 6,603–6,843 lbs (2,995–3,104 kg)—will destroy the other vehicle."
*https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/the-tesla-cybertruck-fi...
That's not that different from my Toyota Sequoia at ~5950 lbs curb weight (I was over 6800 lbs loaded with family, dog, luggage, and tools last time I went over a scale to weigh my 7400 lbs travel trailer).
I drive extremely carefully while using that stupidly large vehicle. Please don't honk at me when I don't jump out into small gaps at an intersection, cut me off when I'm leaving a large gap in front of me, or dart around me when I'm not accelerating like it's a drag race - I'm just trying not to hurt anyone.
My Dad was driving his 6800 lbs Super Duty a few years ago, pulling a trailer with a friend's antique car (a Buick about as long and as heavy as a barge) when a little 2500 lbs Honda Fit pulled out of a driveway to turn left without looking. The truck needed the bumper, radiator, and some trim replaced, the Honda was totaled. He applied the brakes fully on all 8 wheels but basically stayed in the lane unperturbed, the Honda was spun into the ditch and the whole left rear was crushed. If someone had been sitting in the back left seat they'd have been dead. Miraculously, no one was killed.
That arms race is why my wife refuses to downsize. We could get a smaller, lighter, newer travel trailer, and pull it with a Honda Odyssey. But she wants to be as tall as the pickups and as heavy as anything else so she doesn't get killed by some idiot.
It is fun to think that it is very much closing to gross weight where your normal driving license is not enough. As that limit is 3500kg. Meaning that if you have 6 people in it you would be over the limit. And this does not include any cargo...
Sure but thats a feature of all large trucks he's just marketing more aggressively.
What would happen if two Cybertrucks crashed in a head on collision?
> Unfortunately, it's impossible to make a 3.2mm radius on a 1.4mm sheet of stainless steel
Cars in Europe are not made from >3.2mm thick steel plating, and yet they manage it. I don't know if this comment was just ignorance or an attempt at gaslighting, but it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Cybertruck uses a different construction technique, one that's been around for decades yet was never adopted by any other car maker. This is probably one of the reasons why.
You have it backwards - you want something significantly thinner than 3.2mm steel to get a bend radius of 3.2mm. That’s why most cars don’t use sheet steel and have exteriors made with materials that are easier to form
It boils down to pedestrian safety, not the external radius. The high bonnet and bumper mean that a pedestrian would likely be hit by the ultra-hard stainless steel structure of the front bumper and bodywork, where the grille would traditionally be.
I think the whole thing is a kindergartner being rich enough to design his fantasy car, but I wonder if anyone at Tesla is considering a EU version with different materials and more rounded edges.
Bugattis have to have added bumpers to make them legal in the US[1], although they're easily removable by the owner (at their own risk of fines).. it'd be funny if European Teslas had ugly padding around the edges/corners.. or maybe not funny, as I live there I'd loathe to see these ugly things.
1 https://www.carthrottle.com/news/bugatti-chirons-us-spec-bum...
It's perfectly possible if you bend it.
It’s trivially possible. Is Lars Moravy dumber than most, or do they just think everyone else is?
That's intriguing - you can't make thin sheet of metal rounded?
I know precisely nothing about metal design, but why can't you bend it? Steel pipes can be rounded and be made of thin-ish metal.
Not by stamping the steel which is what they’re doing
It's a failure of US policy that this thing will be on the roads (this coming from a Model 3 owner). This angular, crumple-less, overly fast death machine has no place on public roads.
Cool, we won’t be seeing these things on the streets.
Why do articles like this call the Cybertruck a car? It's obviously designed and branded as a truck, albeit a unique-looking one.
Some trucks are cars, this one included.
Possibly due to the unibody vs body-on-frame construction of the vehicle.
I quite like the way it looks - I hadn't considered the crash & pedestrian safety aspects: I'm not a massive fan of the nanny state but this is important.
I live near some rural-ecomentalist type villages (UK) (aesthetics might be an issue, let's ignore that for now) where these things would actually be pretty popular - completely unnecessary but popular.
That's pleasant news
Getting hit by a Cybertruck as a pedestrian is likely considerably safer than being hit by an F-150, a Hummer or any other similarly sized truck or SUV.
Pedestrian impact regulations should make the Cybertruck design illegal, as well any modern truck design. IMO, the laws should be written so that the height of the 1996 F-150 is legal and the 1997 F-150 should be illegal for non-commercial purposes in cities.
1: https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1731918392800510345...
2: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...
Would be limited in where it could go in the UK. In London I drive through narrow width restrictions, keeping large vehicles out, several times a day. You would need special maps.
Which is why it was really stupid to focus on this if your mission really is to accelerate migrating to green energy
his mission is "fuck you pay me", and the green energy thing is just a way to raise capital from SV tech bros and rubes. that and maybe dying on Mars.
Another win for Europe