5 ms·

Well, that wasn't the end of the sentence. They also mentioned "the car is 'a dream to drive.'” Seems relevant and quite a bit less brutal.

reactordev 3y ago
Dreaming of going farther than 200mi? Seems like a sensible dream. 400-500mi I can understand. My gas truck goes about that far. But <200mi is a joke…
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  The real joke is choosing a 3-ton pickup truck for a road trip.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    You are kidding right? There are tons of needs for trucks over long distances. Case in point: I know of a Minnesotan business with South Dakotan vendors. A trip is only needed once a month. That’s a “road trip”? The real joke is people who have never used or needed a truck passing judgement on truck owners.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Basing your justification on the exceptional case instead of the general rule does not make for a good argument. Also, anyone with a modicum of sense could see that it would be better to just rent a truck if you only need one for monthly trips.
      - gjsman-1000 3y ago
        It is a good argument when that exceptional case is literally the reason people buy trucks. You’re telling me a truck buyer won’t have, even once, a case where he actually needs it? It’s the same reason people buy insurance. I’m sure you won’t tell me, “99% of people buying health insurance at 25 years old don’t file claims, so it’s a complete waste of money. A stupid first world luxury, even.” > Also, anyone with a modicum of sense could see that it would be better to just rent a truck if you only need one for monthly trips. At that kind of wear and tear? Not necessarily, especially with tax advantages for depreciation. Also, this reeks of the spirit of “you’ll own nothing and be happy.”
        rglullis 3y ago
        > You’re telling me a truck buyer won’t have, even once, a case where he actually needs it? No, that's not what I am saying at all. What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need. > It’s the same reason people buy insurance. Not at all. People buy insurance as hedge against catastrophic losses. They are totally rational, and the cost of insurance is correlated with actual risk, i.e, a 25 yo will pay less health insurance than a 50yo, so it is not like there is a opportunity cost curve here. > especially with tax advantages for depreciation. You can also rent and deduct it as a business expense. > Also, this reeks of the spirit of “you’ll own nothing and be happy. On the contrary, this is the same advice that really wealthy people will give you, because they know that there are better uses for their capital than buying things they don't need.
        gjsman-1000 3y ago
        > What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need. What gave you the authority and moral credibility, over the perspective of people voting with their wallets, to make that assertion? I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not. It would be like if I made the unfounded assertion that almost all programmers would be better off on Mac. And most that think a Mac is unsuitable are in denial.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > What gave you the authority and moral credibility I lived in an US suburb (Natick, West Mass). I lived in the city center of two American cities (Boston, NYC) for almost 5 years. I'm living in a large European city (Berlin) for 10+ years. Aside from the suburbs, I never had the "need" to have my own car to do anything. Public transportation and biking were the main modes of transportation, but I never restrained myself for getting a taxi or a ZipCar for the occasional longer trip. It's not about being "anti-car". The thing is that I have actual data and I can tell you from actual experience: the majority of people living in large urban centers will be better off if they don't have a car, let alone a truck. > over the perspective of people voting with their wallets. People "voting" with their wallets is not a reliable measure when the ballot does not have all the actual viable candidates. People started buying SUVs and trucks in North America not because they are the obvious superior alternative, but because car makers started removing the other alternatives from the market for not being as profitable. > I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not. In the US, trucks were almost 80% of all auto sales in 2023 [0]. Are you really willing to defend the position that the majority of people bought them because of "need"? [0]: https://finmasters.com/car-sales-statistics/ https://finmasters.com/car-sales-statistics/
      - cityofdelusion 3y ago
        The exceptional case is the whole reason those vehicles exist. Indeed, I have no idea why 3-ton trucks specifically were called out, as they are incredibly rare outside of heavy commercial operations.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > The exceptional case is the whole reason those vehicles exist. Trucks are outselling sedans and lighter cars in North America because of poor regulations and lobbying from the car industry. SUVs and light trucks do not have to have to meet the same emission standards as lighter vehicles, so manufacturers have basically abandoned that market segment and selling nothing but trucks. There is a video from "Not Just Bikes" [0] which goes deep into this. The title could be a little less clickbaity, but it's worth to watch it in full. [0]: https://nebula.tv/videos/notjustbikes-these-stupid-trucks-are-literally-killing-us https://nebula.tv/videos/notjustbikes-these-stupid-trucks-ar...
        ricardobeat 3y ago
        My bad, didn't know that would be confusing. I meant the Cybertruck weighs 3 tons, which makes it very inefficient as an individual/family transport (which is what 95% of them will be used for).
    - falcolas 3y ago
      Most pickup trucks are not 3 tons. They're generally 1 ton or less. Weight has a cost in the power required to get it going. That's what the parent is calling out (IMO).
      - ryathal 3y ago
        Almost every vehicle available today is over 1 ton by weight. Most trucks are at least 2 tons by weight. The 1/4, 1/2, and 1 ton in reference to trucks is cargo capacity.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > There are tons of needs for trucks over long distances. Is there? Logistics aside, it is more sensible to put the load that 3-ton is carrying on a highway tractor/train/boat along with other things going over the same long haul. If your only load is people, you most certainly don't need a 3-ton truck. A car, hell even a light truck, will carry them just as well, if not better. Where logistical problem aren't solved, other 3-ton trucks are actually designed for hauling, not just glorified pickup trucks. If you truly have a niche need for a 3-ton for long-haul transport, the Cybertruck isn't going to be your choice anyway, regardless of range.
  - cityofdelusion 3y ago
    Surely this is a mistake, as no one is road tripping in a 3-ton truck. That is pretty much a box van or dump truck. The vast, vast majority of trucks are light duty 1/2 ton or smaller.
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      I think he meant the literal weight of the vehicle, which is ~6,500lb IIRC. It isn't exactly a standard usage, as it is a 1/2 ton truck by normal truck standards.
      - rascul 3y ago
        That weight puts it closer to a 1 ton truck. 1/2 tons seem to weigh approximately from 4700 to 5500.
        _ea1k 3y ago
        IMO, the old tonnage scheme is pretty weird and outdated at this point. It was originally meant to be based on payload, but those days have long passed. CT is in a weird in between. Payloads are similar to modern half tons, but GVWR is closer to 1 ton. In the market, it really competes with 1/2 ton vehicles, so I'm going with that, but there are good arguments that it doesn't really fit that class well.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  200 miles would be a very useful real world range, if chargers were ubiquitous and I can recharge in the time that it takes me to bathroom and buy a coffee. Those conditions aren't true yet, but hopefully will be.
- GenerWork 3y ago
  Shame you're being downvoted. The fact that this is getting around 200mi without a trailer attached is abysmal. Imagine the range, or lack thereof, if they had been towing. To be fair, I'd expect other electric trucks to get a range like this as well. It's very clear that at this point first adopters are taking one for the team.
  - reactordev 3y ago
    I know, it's ok, I knew it was part flamebait / part joke. The sad part is, without a trailer or anything other than one's self and belongings, only able to go <200mi on a charge and having to wait an hour to charge is not a future I want to be in. Imagine if you attached a trailer, even at 6,000lb GVW, you aren't going very far.
cheonic7392 3y ago
> Well, that wasn't the end of the sentence. They also mentioned "the car is 'a dream to drive.'” Seems relevant and quite a bit less brutal. Many Tesla owners are coming from Toyota or BMW 3 series. So Tesla owners’ bar for “dream to drive” is very low.
- ralfd 3y ago
  The reviews of the Cybertruck on release said that it feels like driving a car, not like a truck. I think that is meant with it. Why don’t you like BMW 3?
- _ea1k 3y ago
  The 3 series may not be what it used to be, but it is still a great car. I'd take one over most of the commuters that I see on the road.
kevinventullo 3y ago
Well, actually, that was the end of the sentence. In fact the “dream” sentence you quote occurs two paragraphs later!

reactordev 3y ago

Dreaming of going farther than 200mi? Seems like a sensible dream. 400-500mi I can understand. My gas truck goes about that far. But <200mi is a joke…

ricardobeat 3y ago
The real joke is choosing a 3-ton pickup truck for a road trip.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  You are kidding right? There are tons of needs for trucks over long distances. Case in point: I know of a Minnesotan business with South Dakotan vendors. A trip is only needed once a month. That’s a “road trip”? The real joke is people who have never used or needed a truck passing judgement on truck owners.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Basing your justification on the exceptional case instead of the general rule does not make for a good argument. Also, anyone with a modicum of sense could see that it would be better to just rent a truck if you only need one for monthly trips.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      It is a good argument when that exceptional case is literally the reason people buy trucks. You’re telling me a truck buyer won’t have, even once, a case where he actually needs it? It’s the same reason people buy insurance. I’m sure you won’t tell me, “99% of people buying health insurance at 25 years old don’t file claims, so it’s a complete waste of money. A stupid first world luxury, even.” > Also, anyone with a modicum of sense could see that it would be better to just rent a truck if you only need one for monthly trips. At that kind of wear and tear? Not necessarily, especially with tax advantages for depreciation. Also, this reeks of the spirit of “you’ll own nothing and be happy.”
      - rglullis 3y ago
        > You’re telling me a truck buyer won’t have, even once, a case where he actually needs it? No, that's not what I am saying at all. What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need. > It’s the same reason people buy insurance. Not at all. People buy insurance as hedge against catastrophic losses. They are totally rational, and the cost of insurance is correlated with actual risk, i.e, a 25 yo will pay less health insurance than a 50yo, so it is not like there is a opportunity cost curve here. > especially with tax advantages for depreciation. You can also rent and deduct it as a business expense. > Also, this reeks of the spirit of “you’ll own nothing and be happy. On the contrary, this is the same advice that really wealthy people will give you, because they know that there are better uses for their capital than buying things they don't need.
        gjsman-1000 3y ago
        > What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need. What gave you the authority and moral credibility, over the perspective of people voting with their wallets, to make that assertion? I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not. It would be like if I made the unfounded assertion that almost all programmers would be better off on Mac. And most that think a Mac is unsuitable are in denial.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > What gave you the authority and moral credibility I lived in an US suburb (Natick, West Mass). I lived in the city center of two American cities (Boston, NYC) for almost 5 years. I'm living in a large European city (Berlin) for 10+ years. Aside from the suburbs, I never had the "need" to have my own car to do anything. Public transportation and biking were the main modes of transportation, but I never restrained myself for getting a taxi or a ZipCar for the occasional longer trip. It's not about being "anti-car". The thing is that I have actual data and I can tell you from actual experience: the majority of people living in large urban centers will be better off if they don't have a car, let alone a truck. > over the perspective of people voting with their wallets. People "voting" with their wallets is not a reliable measure when the ballot does not have all the actual viable candidates. People started buying SUVs and trucks in North America not because they are the obvious superior alternative, but because car makers started removing the other alternatives from the market for not being as profitable. > I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not. In the US, trucks were almost 80% of all auto sales in 2023 [0]. Are you really willing to defend the position that the majority of people bought them because of "need"? [0]: https://finmasters.com/car-sales-statistics/ https://finmasters.com/car-sales-statistics/
    - cityofdelusion 3y ago
      The exceptional case is the whole reason those vehicles exist. Indeed, I have no idea why 3-ton trucks specifically were called out, as they are incredibly rare outside of heavy commercial operations.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        > The exceptional case is the whole reason those vehicles exist. Trucks are outselling sedans and lighter cars in North America because of poor regulations and lobbying from the car industry. SUVs and light trucks do not have to have to meet the same emission standards as lighter vehicles, so manufacturers have basically abandoned that market segment and selling nothing but trucks. There is a video from "Not Just Bikes" [0] which goes deep into this. The title could be a little less clickbaity, but it's worth to watch it in full. [0]: https://nebula.tv/videos/notjustbikes-these-stupid-trucks-are-literally-killing-us https://nebula.tv/videos/notjustbikes-these-stupid-trucks-ar...
      - ricardobeat 3y ago
        My bad, didn't know that would be confusing. I meant the Cybertruck weighs 3 tons, which makes it very inefficient as an individual/family transport (which is what 95% of them will be used for).
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Most pickup trucks are not 3 tons. They're generally 1 ton or less. Weight has a cost in the power required to get it going. That's what the parent is calling out (IMO).
    - ryathal 3y ago
      Almost every vehicle available today is over 1 ton by weight. Most trucks are at least 2 tons by weight. The 1/4, 1/2, and 1 ton in reference to trucks is cargo capacity.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > There are tons of needs for trucks over long distances. Is there? Logistics aside, it is more sensible to put the load that 3-ton is carrying on a highway tractor/train/boat along with other things going over the same long haul. If your only load is people, you most certainly don't need a 3-ton truck. A car, hell even a light truck, will carry them just as well, if not better. Where logistical problem aren't solved, other 3-ton trucks are actually designed for hauling, not just glorified pickup trucks. If you truly have a niche need for a 3-ton for long-haul transport, the Cybertruck isn't going to be your choice anyway, regardless of range.
- cityofdelusion 3y ago
  Surely this is a mistake, as no one is road tripping in a 3-ton truck. That is pretty much a box van or dump truck. The vast, vast majority of trucks are light duty 1/2 ton or smaller.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    I think he meant the literal weight of the vehicle, which is ~6,500lb IIRC. It isn't exactly a standard usage, as it is a 1/2 ton truck by normal truck standards.
    - rascul 3y ago
      That weight puts it closer to a 1 ton truck. 1/2 tons seem to weigh approximately from 4700 to 5500.
      - _ea1k 3y ago
        IMO, the old tonnage scheme is pretty weird and outdated at this point. It was originally meant to be based on payload, but those days have long passed. CT is in a weird in between. Payloads are similar to modern half tons, but GVWR is closer to 1 ton. In the market, it really competes with 1/2 ton vehicles, so I'm going with that, but there are good arguments that it doesn't really fit that class well.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
200 miles would be a very useful real world range, if chargers were ubiquitous and I can recharge in the time that it takes me to bathroom and buy a coffee. Those conditions aren't true yet, but hopefully will be.
GenerWork 3y ago
Shame you're being downvoted. The fact that this is getting around 200mi without a trailer attached is abysmal. Imagine the range, or lack thereof, if they had been towing. To be fair, I'd expect other electric trucks to get a range like this as well. It's very clear that at this point first adopters are taking one for the team.
- reactordev 3y ago
  I know, it's ok, I knew it was part flamebait / part joke. The sad part is, without a trailer or anything other than one's self and belongings, only able to go <200mi on a charge and having to wait an hour to charge is not a future I want to be in. Imagine if you attached a trailer, even at 6,000lb GVW, you aren't going very far.

cheonic7392 3y ago

> Well, that wasn't the end of the sentence. They also mentioned "the car is 'a dream to drive.'” Seems relevant and quite a bit less brutal. Many Tesla owners are coming from Toyota or BMW 3 series. So Tesla owners’ bar for “dream to drive” is very low.

ralfd 3y ago
The reviews of the Cybertruck on release said that it feels like driving a car, not like a truck. I think that is meant with it. Why don’t you like BMW 3?
_ea1k 3y ago
The 3 series may not be what it used to be, but it is still a great car. I'd take one over most of the commuters that I see on the road.

kevinventullo 3y ago

Well, actually, that was the end of the sentence. In fact the “dream” sentence you quote occurs two paragraphs later!