Let’s keep in mind that Tesla invested in this truck to be the next F-150, which is the best-selling vehicle in the USA for the past multiple decades.
Even the hated Edsel is worth quite a bit today.
Of course it might be harder to keep a Cybertruck running for 50 years due to all the computerized components. Restorers will probably be relegated to rebuilding Cybertruck bodies with new components.
Really no different than any classic car, really. GM isn't selling OEM parts for a '57 Chevy, for example. If you need replacement parts on those, nowadays, you're likely going to specialty manufacturers given there really aren't any "parts cars" around anymore.
Tesla’s corporate leadership would be much happier if the Cybertruck was selling 100,000 units a year and was not at all a collector’s item.
I don’t have to talk about exactly what my comment parent is talking about in all facets. This isn’t a courtroom cross-examination.
Good book on the subject: https://www.sup.org/books/history/disaster-dearborn
And all the well-documented reliability and quality issues.
Not all HNers are good parents
It's always an excuse and everyone else's fault that things are politicized. The same people telling us to leave every social problem to the Invisible Hand get fussy when it actually manifests.
Yep. This is the world the Supreme Court handed us with Citizen's United. Now that money is speech, we all have to accept that when we buy things, our money can be used against us.
This is the world they wanted, and if you hate cancel culture, then you need to get on board with fixing the damage from Citizen's United... not raging against regular people who are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, and using their money as speech.
What you buy is your politics now. It fucking sucks, but look at it with clearer eyes.
This is interesting to say given that by most objective measures of what constitutes a good truck, the cybertruck is a bad truck.
Edit: the stupid bed cover gets stuck when exposed to a not abnormal amount of dirt. In dry climates the thing shocks you every time you touch it. People regularly are slicing their hands open randomly on it. Body panels routinely fall off. Accelerator pedal getting stuck triggering recall. Shape of the bed making it impossible to actually carry anything normal and rectangular, 100 mile tow range when putting actual weight on it, bad visibility. I've seen some hilarious videos of them getting stuck in road conditions my Yaris could handle. I've even seen someone catastrophically damage the wheels by turning them left and right rapidly a few times.
A good truck can carry things in the bed and tow something a long way. It can drive on and off a dirty worksite without critical components failing or getting dug in or snapping an axle. Or ok fine, the Houston family truck special, it should at least be able to take the cooler and kids to the beach without getting stuck.
The cybertruck is not a good truck. It may be a good something else, status symbol or something, maybe it's comfortable to drive, I don't particularly care, it's simply not a good truck.
There is literally no such thing. But regardless, in this subthread, we are discussing the response of children to the pure aesthetics of the truck (or lack thereof) vs. the coached, politicized reaction to what it is claimed to represent.
There are, of course, plenty of subjective measures such as NVH, amenability to modification through the aftermarket, total cost of ownership, offroad capabilities, etc.
From everything I've seen, some of which OP mentioned in an edit, points to the Cybertruck being a terrible truck seemingly designed by folks who have never owned/used a truck. And again, that is ignoring Elon's politics.
Nobody said anything about it not failing, it certainly did fail just like the Ford F150 Lighting before it.
Liking something is subjective and lots of people like the design of the Cybertruck. It failed becasue Elon lied about its specs and couldnt deliver. Just because you dont like how it looks doesn't mean everybody else doesn't as well.
Mostly I've seen younger kids love it. I was at the park and a little girl saw a Cybertruck pull up -- "Look, Dad, it's from the future!"
I think Cybertruck is probably ultimately a failure, but the amount of hate it gets when they are at least trying to push things outside of the normal makes me sad. The amount of negativity towards anything new that's not perfect is insane.
If the CyberTruck were the size of a Honda Ridgeline or Ford Maverick, I think truck folks (who skew conservative) would look at it a lot less derisively. There are entire swathes of the half-ton truck market that the Cybertruck simply cannot compete in due to a seeming fundamental misunderstanding by the design team of what the vehicle needs to be capable of and amenable to. This is especially evident in the fleet/work truck market where the unibody design immediately shuts out folks who need to put an aftermarket bed replacement (think plumbers, welders, and other trades).
It straddles the 1/2 to 3/4 ton segment in terms of specs, but it is fundamentally impossible to tow a 5th wheel or gooseneck trailer with a Cybertruck.
Again, there is "think different" and there is "misunderstand the market."
A significant portion of the hate they get is for what they represent and who they’re from, not because they’re “new” or “different” or “not perfect”.
But anyway, I don't think it's fair to say he "hoarded" wealth. It's all from ownership in companies he led, or selling stock in said companies. It's not like, I don't know, post-soviet Russian oligarchs or Carlos Slim or something, who you could all reasonably say were hoarding wealth.
Because adults around them groomed them for those actions. Kids don't just start booing at objects out of the blue, they parrot the learned behavior of the adults around them.
Otherwise you're of course right.
Why are my tax dollars going to foreign healthcare, education, and food banks when we could definitely use that here?
> claims about 200+ year olds recieving pensions Elon and a SSA inspector general investigation identified approximately $298 million paid to 24,000 deceased beneficiaries over a period spanning 1998–2019. Some of that money was recovered.
He did nothing. He was an advisor to the president, and his team made reccomendations. Also, there is a GAO that has reviewed all canceled contracts. All of the recipients had the right to protest... unfortunately, most of the NGO's simply had to show up to court to get the contracts back, but they didn't because it was obvious fraud.
And, that grok part? What is all that about? Any AI, can do all of those things? Spending on election interference? So all money donated to political orgs are election interference?
The reasons you seem to hate him, all seem like good things to me?
I somewhat agree. You vote for universal healthcare, or against it?
Either way, addressing communicable diseases in far away places also helps keep them from becoming nearby diseases. It's far cheaper to fund some vaccines in a far away land than deal with widespread disease domestically. And in the end, cutting these things did practically nothing for the deficit. It was a rounding error of spending to save so many lives around the world.
And they want to argue they're instituting a "Christian" nation. How about following His red text words?
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
1. Elon didn't "create jobs," he profited off other's labor by having his name on some pieces of paper. Furthermore it's often reported that rather than an innovative force in a company, usually people have to work hard to keep him as uninvolved as possible, because he's mostly incompetent.
2. He's the richest man in the world. I don't care the volume of tax he paid, I care what percentage of his spending power it is, because that's how my taxes and my neighbor's taxes are calculated, and it's only fair his should be as well. By that measure, he pays functionally no taxes. My taxes impact my purchasing power and I have to budget for it. His should as well. After all, his money only has value because of the existence of this government.
3. SpaceX sucks the air out of the room the same way his fake drill company killed California HSR. Stop letting crony capitalists suck government contracts dry and then have their buddies sell the "more efficient private solution" that also doesn't get delivered. It's frankly absurd to not nationalize something as critical to sovereignty as a space program.
I worked at Tesla for two years on the capital expenditure team... He literally goes around the factory making hundreds of changes. Sometimes those changes are bad, and are reverted but in my experience, he's right 95% of the time, and the other 5% he'll revert when shown evidence of why it's a bad idea. I'm sure he does the same thing at SpaceX. He is literally the HEAD ENGINEER. He approves the factory layouts, he is responsible for tak time personally, he is constantly on the factory floor.
>"Furthermore it's often reported that rather than an innovative force in a company, usually people have to work hard to keep him as uninvolved as possible, because he's mostly incompetent."
WTF are you talking about? Who could possible keep him from being uninvoled? he is on the factory floor bi weekly making adjustments and negotiating equipment delivery. No one has the power to try and "Keep him uninvoled" and if so, they would be quickly fired.
>It's frankly absurd to not nationalize something as critical to sovereignty as a space program.
Uhh... we tried that. it'd called NASA, and it's been behind the soviet union since the early 2000's.
What happens when you nationalize it? You realise you can't force people to innovate, right? Do you think Gavin Newsom will be a better CEO of SpaceX? Do you think we have any chance of reaching mars after nationaliztion?
Why do you feel the right to be able to take what someone else has built?
The Cybertruck does not have that quality.
Both think it looks ugly.
No need to influence most people, IMO. Vehicles are shaped the way they are because the designs have broad appeal in general (familiarity? proportions? trends?). Most of us would find a normal, well-tailored black suit to be appealing and be baffled by avant garde, high fasion men's clothing.
Why should anyone be surprised that a completely novel design isn't appealing to most?
Isn’t it mostly fuel efficiency standards and manufacturability? You’ve got a chassis that’s used for like five different models for five years between refreshes, not a lot of room to innovate without driving up all the costs so only the luxury cars can afford to look different.
People who want cars to look different for it's own sake are saying they want worse cars.
Why? Why do those people need their cars to be shittier cars just to look different? What are they after? I bought a car as a toy, but it's average looking and not really special, and that doesn't have to actually impact how much I enjoy it. My previous shitty car was also very much enjoyed.
I don't understand the insistence that it looks "different" as if there is any virtue to a car design that was randomly generated to look different.
My kids are too young for this, but surely there's a tradeoff here. Should you override some of your child's natural wonder because of adult aesthetics (or worse political concerns)? Yes. But how often? I'm not sure the line should be drawn at a truck design. (Although, maybe you're teaching your kid taste, again I'm not sure.)
14yo probably influenced -me- more than the other direction, though. That one has strong opinions.
This is the same 14yo who when she was younger would delightedly point out every Tesla (then, mostly model S's) she saw on the road. Probably still responding to both aesthetics and politics but it was interesting to see the shift.
Every parent influences their children. It's called parenting.
There's going to be 3 owners perpetually going to Cars and Coffee with theirs, rotating with their pristine Pontiac Aztec.
And that's all they'll do with it because there is no way a CyberTruck is going to last 30 years otherwise.
Unsurprising, as they look like they were designed by an 8 year old.
(FWIW my kids giggle at the Cybertruck and say it looks silly. In a sense they do love them but I’m not convinced they’ll long for one in years to come)
Do you have anything empirical to back this up? This feels like someone kind of hoping something is true. It's like the Harley rider sure that everyone thinks they're super cool with their super loud bike.
The classroom of kids Ive seen (my kids attend 3 different schools), all of them are amazed by them - age ranges: 3, 7, 9 all their classrooms loved them. Same with some of the older kids I've been around. They're all boys, I do imagine it's a very boy-friendly car.
I personally don't have a cyber truck, not big on it personally, but never put my own opinions into my kids. The kids may not "like it", but they are amazed by it.
I'm in an area that doesn't really hate Musk, so I think that does have an impact.