3 ms·

It's a brutally agressive looking machine - I assume intentionally so. That flat front pretty much guarantees padestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist fatailities in a c

It's a brutally agressive looking machine - I assume intentionally so. That flat front pretty much guarantees padestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist fatailities in a collision. And over on Ars Technica they say "Musk implied that in a crash with another vehicle, the Cybertruck [...] will destroy the other vehicle." [1] - and presumably therefore kills its occupants too. Opinion: this is the purest physical realisation of the Musk/Tesla world-view. A kind of Conway's law for cars. Deeply depressing, and the tech merely distracts from this a little. Why do we need this thing, again? [1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/the-tesla-cybertruck-finally-goes-on-sale-starting-at-60990/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/the-tesla-cybertruck-fi...

poulpy123 3y ago
what I don't get is why the effect of a crash on other isn't taken into account in the evaluation of car safety
- furyg3 3y ago
  It is. One of the key differences between the EU and US regulations is (was?) that there is a greater evaluation of what happens to a pedestrian when hit by the car being tested.
  - aurea 3y ago
    I hope this car never makes it into Europe in current form.
    - devnullbrain 3y ago
      Tesla have made statements saying that it won't. As a layman, I don't think the flat front is possible.
      - dan_hawkins 3y ago
        Sharp edges are also not allowed in most European countries.
- gambiting 3y ago
  The impact to pedestrians is taken into account. The impact on other cars isn't, because I don't see how you'd do that objectively - do you just crash it against an identical model? A selection of several other cars from different categories/brands? How would you determine those? Do you just test head-on collisions, or the whole gauntlet of impacts? Wouldn't that make any test require dozens and dozens of vehicles, and ultimately tell you very little because the variety of vehicles on road is so huge that your crash results against a Honda Jazz might mean nothing in a crash against a Civic or anything else.
  - hetspookjee 3y ago
    Well I think one can start with a bit of an average car. I mean humans vary a lot too. Both in size and resilience. If there’d be some wireframe made that can represent a bit of the car rigidity of an average 2008 car for example we can definitely see how this monolith would vaporize any car, versus the Jazz that’d mostly dent itself in a crash. And include that in the rating as well. Current SUV trends are abysmal for others with their 800bhp and near 3000kg kerb weight. It’s I think a solid way to stop this race to the bottom.
  - poulpy123 3y ago
    it would be possible to test the effect of the car on a (or several) standardized objects, and compare the car resistance to these standardized objects
    - gambiting 3y ago
      The issue with that is that manufacturers would obviously work to make sure their cars score super well against those specific objects. Would you be able to make sure it translates well to collisions against real life cars in real life situations? I'm not sure - usually when you start judging manufacturers on a certain metric they make sure to do well on that one metric at the cost of everything else.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Avoiding Goodhart's law is a general problem, and in this case it's the regulator's problem.
Hamuko 3y ago
How are the crumple zones on the Cybertruck for protecting the occupants inside the Cybertruck itself?
- akmarinov 3y ago
  Not great - https://youtu.be/wqcu0j3Wsys?t=815 https://youtu.be/wqcu0j3Wsys?t=815
  - nxm 3y ago
    It actually did great. The occupant area was minimally damaged - the front end absorbed the collision as it was designed to do. The driver would have walked away from this collision. Tesla makes some of the safest vehicles on the road from a driver/occupant perspective, but lately HN loves to hate on Tesla.
    - akmarinov 3y ago
      Well, not really - not much crumple zone in the front and the way the sides haven't crumpled at all means all of that force went into the occupant area. Tesla does make some of the safest vehicles, I agree, but probably not the Cybertruck. Let's wait and see the crash test results before speculating, either of us could be wrong.
      - nameistaken 3y ago
        [flagged]
        jerska 3y ago
        … brings a counter theory to the parent comment to clearly explain why conclusions are hard to draw, then explicitly states that it’s inconclusive. The bad faith and passive-aggressive tone were unwarranted.
    - valval 3y ago
      HN is awfully leftist, and Musk doesn’t enjoy the greatest admiration among those people.
danielfoster 3y ago
We also need more legislation holding automakers and drivers liable for the impact of their designs on other road users. I'm not up to speed on product liability, but this type of statement from Musk seems likely to invite lawsuits from anyone injured by a Cybertruck. Hopefully the car has a good pedestrian avoidance system. Otherwise, it seems to have a large blind spot for the driver. The nearly flat front also looks dangerous as well.
hermitcrab 3y ago
It can apparently also withstand a baseball thrown at the window at speed manageable by an unathletic 8 year old. Impressive. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-67586213 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-67586213
cashsterling 3y ago
Lets remember that most sedan [and smaller] cars do not fair well in collisions with pick-up trucks like the Ford F250... and neither do pedestrians and cyclists. Then consider all of the even larger, heavily industrial vehicles on the road... Does look like the cybertruck might be even burlier than a F250... but the point is, we already share the road with "mini-tanks" [that are intrinsically more dangerous to other vehicles in collisions]. Adding one more niche model is not a significant risk increase.
- jacobolus 3y ago
  And the manufacturers of all of these vehicles should be partially liable for damage caused.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Don't forget that aggression and belligerence in vehicle design is a selling point to certain segments of truck buyers. It's not enough that the vehicle will protect its occupants in a crash. Its ability to destroy the thing it crashes into is a selling point to some people. I have more than once heard people boasting about how much their truck would damage a [slur] little Prius (or whatever) if they ran into one.
iJohnDoe 3y ago
[flagged]
neop1x 3y ago
I really hope it won't pass EU legislation. It's like an APC.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
  During the initial cybertruck announcement, Musk said this is their first vehicle they were designing to only be exclusively sold in the U.S., specifically because they could create a crazier design by only having to conform to one set of regulatory constraints.
deagle50 3y ago
Depressing yes, but not because of Musk/Tesla. We'd be surrounded by SUVs, trucks, carjackings, and deer regardless. Unfortunately the best I can do is get the biggest steel cage possible and look out for #1. His statement is clearly hyperbole, if anything it shows that he gave up on protecting pedestrians long ago when it became clear most vehicle buyers and the regulatory bodies don't care.
- MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
  A big part of protecting pedestrians is visibility and automatic braking. I know Cybertruck has a bumper-height forward-facing camera, and I would expect the Tesla software to be very good. As for direct visibility, while I'm sure it's worse in a Cybertruck than with a small car, I'm interested to know how it compares to other trucks. With a shorter front (in both height and depth) you would think it would be better, and I'm guessing it probably is.
jfinmaniv 3y ago
Are flat fronts and apparent indifference to truck-pedestrian interactions specific to the cybertruck, or did Tesla just miss an opportunity to improve the status quo in this regard? I am trying to calibrate my Musk skepticism.

poulpy123 3y ago

what I don't get is why the effect of a crash on other isn't taken into account in the evaluation of car safety

furyg3 3y ago
It is. One of the key differences between the EU and US regulations is (was?) that there is a greater evaluation of what happens to a pedestrian when hit by the car being tested.
- aurea 3y ago
  I hope this car never makes it into Europe in current form.
  - devnullbrain 3y ago
    Tesla have made statements saying that it won't. As a layman, I don't think the flat front is possible.
    - dan_hawkins 3y ago
      Sharp edges are also not allowed in most European countries.
gambiting 3y ago
The impact to pedestrians is taken into account. The impact on other cars isn't, because I don't see how you'd do that objectively - do you just crash it against an identical model? A selection of several other cars from different categories/brands? How would you determine those? Do you just test head-on collisions, or the whole gauntlet of impacts? Wouldn't that make any test require dozens and dozens of vehicles, and ultimately tell you very little because the variety of vehicles on road is so huge that your crash results against a Honda Jazz might mean nothing in a crash against a Civic or anything else.
- hetspookjee 3y ago
  Well I think one can start with a bit of an average car. I mean humans vary a lot too. Both in size and resilience. If there’d be some wireframe made that can represent a bit of the car rigidity of an average 2008 car for example we can definitely see how this monolith would vaporize any car, versus the Jazz that’d mostly dent itself in a crash. And include that in the rating as well. Current SUV trends are abysmal for others with their 800bhp and near 3000kg kerb weight. It’s I think a solid way to stop this race to the bottom.
- poulpy123 3y ago
  it would be possible to test the effect of the car on a (or several) standardized objects, and compare the car resistance to these standardized objects
  - gambiting 3y ago
    The issue with that is that manufacturers would obviously work to make sure their cars score super well against those specific objects. Would you be able to make sure it translates well to collisions against real life cars in real life situations? I'm not sure - usually when you start judging manufacturers on a certain metric they make sure to do well on that one metric at the cost of everything else.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Avoiding Goodhart's law is a general problem, and in this case it's the regulator's problem.

Hamuko 3y ago

How are the crumple zones on the Cybertruck for protecting the occupants inside the Cybertruck itself?

akmarinov 3y ago
Not great - https://youtu.be/wqcu0j3Wsys?t=815 https://youtu.be/wqcu0j3Wsys?t=815
- nxm 3y ago
  It actually did great. The occupant area was minimally damaged - the front end absorbed the collision as it was designed to do. The driver would have walked away from this collision. Tesla makes some of the safest vehicles on the road from a driver/occupant perspective, but lately HN loves to hate on Tesla.
  - akmarinov 3y ago
    Well, not really - not much crumple zone in the front and the way the sides haven't crumpled at all means all of that force went into the occupant area. Tesla does make some of the safest vehicles, I agree, but probably not the Cybertruck. Let's wait and see the crash test results before speculating, either of us could be wrong.
    - nameistaken 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - jerska 3y ago
        … brings a counter theory to the parent comment to clearly explain why conclusions are hard to draw, then explicitly states that it’s inconclusive. The bad faith and passive-aggressive tone were unwarranted.
  - valval 3y ago
    HN is awfully leftist, and Musk doesn’t enjoy the greatest admiration among those people.

danielfoster 3y ago

We also need more legislation holding automakers and drivers liable for the impact of their designs on other road users. I'm not up to speed on product liability, but this type of statement from Musk seems likely to invite lawsuits from anyone injured by a Cybertruck. Hopefully the car has a good pedestrian avoidance system. Otherwise, it seems to have a large blind spot for the driver. The nearly flat front also looks dangerous as well.

hermitcrab 3y ago

It can apparently also withstand a baseball thrown at the window at speed manageable by an unathletic 8 year old. Impressive. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-67586213 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-67586213

cashsterling 3y ago

Lets remember that most sedan [and smaller] cars do not fair well in collisions with pick-up trucks like the Ford F250... and neither do pedestrians and cyclists. Then consider all of the even larger, heavily industrial vehicles on the road... Does look like the cybertruck might be even burlier than a F250... but the point is, we already share the road with "mini-tanks" [that are intrinsically more dangerous to other vehicles in collisions]. Adding one more niche model is not a significant risk increase.

jacobolus 3y ago
And the manufacturers of all of these vehicles should be partially liable for damage caused.
ryandrake 3y ago
Don't forget that aggression and belligerence in vehicle design is a selling point to certain segments of truck buyers. It's not enough that the vehicle will protect its occupants in a crash. Its ability to destroy the thing it crashes into is a selling point to some people. I have more than once heard people boasting about how much their truck would damage a [slur] little Prius (or whatever) if they ran into one.

iJohnDoe 3y ago

[flagged]

neop1x 3y ago

I really hope it won't pass EU legislation. It's like an APC.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
During the initial cybertruck announcement, Musk said this is their first vehicle they were designing to only be exclusively sold in the U.S., specifically because they could create a crazier design by only having to conform to one set of regulatory constraints.

deagle50 3y ago

Depressing yes, but not because of Musk/Tesla. We'd be surrounded by SUVs, trucks, carjackings, and deer regardless. Unfortunately the best I can do is get the biggest steel cage possible and look out for #1. His statement is clearly hyperbole, if anything it shows that he gave up on protecting pedestrians long ago when it became clear most vehicle buyers and the regulatory bodies don't care.

MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
A big part of protecting pedestrians is visibility and automatic braking. I know Cybertruck has a bumper-height forward-facing camera, and I would expect the Tesla software to be very good. As for direct visibility, while I'm sure it's worse in a Cybertruck than with a small car, I'm interested to know how it compares to other trucks. With a shorter front (in both height and depth) you would think it would be better, and I'm guessing it probably is.

jfinmaniv 3y ago

Are flat fronts and apparent indifference to truck-pedestrian interactions specific to the cybertruck, or did Tesla just miss an opportunity to improve the status quo in this regard? I am trying to calibrate my Musk skepticism.