Electric Cars: Can they finally become popular in the United States?

[waltworks]

I try to minimize mine, but I won’t be swearing off of flying for family vacations.  We got solar last winter and replaced our well worn 2005 toyota matrix (267k miles and in need of several thousand in repairs in the coming months) with a hybrid that gets better mileage.  We eat very little meat.  Like, I never buy any at the grocery store, but I’ll have some if it’s served up at a work dinner.  We live in a walkable/billable small town.

Unfortunately, one cross country round trip plane flight pretty much negates a full year of not driving a car at all (obviously this depends a bit on the exact car/flight, etc, etc). Planes are pretty bad. So a more efficient car and less meat and such are great, but they're small potatoes compared to flying around, when it comes to your personal carbon footprint.

-W

[GuitarStv]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

[nereo]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

My experiences differ here to some degree.  Ever since high school my preferred method for getting around has been on a bike or walking, and I was always cognizant of being one of the 'fringe' people in the various cities/towns I have lived in throughout the US and Canada.  Often it took considerable effort to find suitable, safe cycling routes every time I moved.

It was traveling and working in Europe that brought a head-smacking "a-ha!" moment to me about how modern cities could and should be designed to promote pedestrian transportation and mass transit.  Previously I had often daydreamed while riding, thinking "oh, if they could just add a bike-lane to this stretch of road it would solve so many problems with bike traffic!"  Working for a few weeks in Copenhagen made me realize that I was still stuck in this N.A mentality that roads are for cars, and cars rule city planning, and "other uses" must be carved out from that blueprint.  i had always heard about bike-centric modern cities but until I experienced one first hand I still didn't get it, despite using a bike myself almost daily.

It also threw into stark contrast a lot of the false assumptions people made whenever I sat on town council meetings about why we couldn't have better cycling infrastructure (examples:  "people won't bike when it's cold" or "the city was designed for cars, there's no way it can be converted" or "cycling won't work here because its too dense/hilly/hot/cold".

Sometimes the best way of seeing the flaws in your own world is to travel to a new one and realize how things can be different and still work very well (or better).

Granted - the likelihood of that happening is much less when you are on a resort or cruise ship experience where your bona-fide experiences are limited. Which is why I prefer to experience other countries by working there for a period of several weeks to several months.

[AlanStache]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I get your point in theory but the latest CityNerd is a sort of counter point.  Lots of rich people (who presumably have been to Europe) in a big-ish tourist town trying to sell it self in part on being historic-old world but everywhere has on street parking and being car dependent.  I am guessing it is some deeply ingrained American feeling that we need cars here, maybe they in Europe can make it work without them but that would never work here. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHTla7K1CTE

Wonder what would happen if American walkability/non-car dependencies advocates put up signs in walkable tourist areas in Europe like "your home town could have a pedestrian mall and be more pleasant with "people first" areas" then a QR code to Strong Towns etc. 

I just dont know that American tourists can make the connection that such things are possible in the US.

[catccc]

I try to minimize mine, but I won’t be swearing off of flying for family vacations.  We got solar last winter and replaced our well worn 2005 toyota matrix (267k miles and in need of several thousand in repairs in the coming months) with a hybrid that gets better mileage.  We eat very little meat.  Like, I never buy any at the grocery store, but I’ll have some if it’s served up at a work dinner.  We live in a walkable/bikable small town.

Unfortunately, one cross country round trip plane flight pretty much negates a full year of not driving a car at all (obviously this depends a bit on the exact car/flight, etc, etc). Planes are pretty bad. So a more efficient car and less meat and such are great, but they're small potatoes compared to flying around, when it comes to your personal carbon footprint.

-W

Yup, I’m fully aware that the biggest impact I have is flying.  It’s just not something I’m willing to compromise on right now, but I do try to limit it. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do what we are willing to reduce our impact, but the big wins will be at systemic levels.

[pecunia]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

My experiences differ here to some degree.  Ever since high school my preferred method for getting around has been on a bike or walking, and I was always cognizant of being one of the 'fringe' people in the various cities/towns I have lived in throughout the US and Canada.  Often it took considerable effort to find suitable, safe cycling routes every time I moved.

It was traveling and working in Europe that brought a head-smacking "a-ha!" moment to me about how modern cities could and should be designed to promote pedestrian transportation and mass transit.  Previously I had often daydreamed while riding, thinking "oh, if they could just add a bike-lane to this stretch of road it would solve so many problems with bike traffic!"  Working for a few weeks in Copenhagen made me realize that I was still stuck in this N.A mentality that roads are for cars, and cars rule city planning, and "other uses" must be carved out from that blueprint.  i had always heard about bike-centric modern cities but until I experienced one first hand I still didn't get it, despite using a bike myself almost daily.

It also threw into stark contrast a lot of the false assumptions people made whenever I sat on town council meetings about why we couldn't have better cycling infrastructure (examples:  "people won't bike when it's cold" or "the city was designed for cars, there's no way it can be converted" or "cycling won't work here because its too dense/hilly/hot/cold".

Sometimes the best way of seeing the flaws in your own world is to travel to a new one and realize how things can be different and still work very well (or better).

Granted - the likelihood of that happening is much less when you are on a resort or cruise ship experience where your bona-fide experiences are limited. Which is why I prefer to experience other countries by working there for a period of several weeks to several months.

One point has been missed that has been pointed out to me by the operators of fine automobiles.  I have been accosted by the questions, "Who pays for these roads?  Did your bicycle pay for these roads?  I and my fellow drivers have paid for these roads through gas taxes.  It is only through our benevolence that we allow you to share this road with us."   

[AlanStache]

pecunia - are you saying that gas taxes fund roads or saying that drivers say that?  If the former please cite the funding level, as the gas tax has remained nearly unchanged for a long time and probably not kept up with inflation over the years.  Go find numbers for streets not highways - places bikes could travel on. 

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

[LennStar]

"Who pays for these roads?  Did your bicycle pay for these roads?  I and my fellow drivers have paid for these roads through gas taxes.  It is only through our benevolence that we allow you to share this road with us."   

So, how is this in the US?
How much of the gas taxes goes to the feds, how much to the state level, to the county level, to the city level?
How much do all those entities pay for road building and maintenance? What about the poisened water from all those sealed areas, how much does the transport and cleaning of that cost?

And going to less direct costs:
How much for police, firefighters, ambulance, who have to travel more often and farer because of the cars (and such are needed in a higher number)?

And what about indirect costs, such as emissions of deadly fumes, microplastic from tires, health cost of sedentiary life or noise? Not to mention that thing with the climate.

[nereo]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

This is partially correct.  The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund.  Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021.  Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.

tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

This is partially correct.  The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund.  Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021.  Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.

tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).

Every time I dig into the matter, I find more ways that we subsidize automobile usage.

[pecunia]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

This is partially correct.  The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund.  Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021.  Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.

tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).

Every time I dig into the matter, I find more ways that we subsidize automobile usage.

State taxes are 28.6 cents per gallon.  Mr, Internet told me that the principal funding for County road commission is the license fees and the gas tax.

It also told me:

On average, state motor fuel tax accounts for about 40% of revenue for the State Transportation Fund. The federal government also charges a fuel tax of $0.18 per gallon on gasoline and $0.24 per gallon on diesel. In March 2019

A bit more elaboration.

State road construction is funded by a patchwork of federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars. Funds are raised through the federal fuel tax, state fuel tax, license and registration fees.

I guess now  I can tell the next big mean looking truck driver that tells me about taxes and why he owns the road, "Yes sir."  Then I will pedal my bike to safety.

You see - Sometimes facts don't matter.

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, my understanding is that gas taxes in the US have not kept pace with inflation for decades.  So they're not paying for road maintenance much at all, that money is taken out of the same public coffers that everyone pays into.

This is partially correct.  The federal 'gas tax' goes into the Highway Trust Fund.  Those funds are used for the construction and maintenance of federally funded roads (namely the interstate system). They do NOT support the secondary streets and roads that are used by cyclists (in almost all cases cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited from using these roads). As AlanStache pointed out, the federal 'gas tax' which supposedly funds the HTF has not increased since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation (which has risen 93% since then, while the fleet-wide MPG has improved from 19.6 mpg to 27.5).
Consequentially, according to the CBO over $270 Billion has been transferred from from the general fund to the trust fund from 2008 through 2021.  Despite this, our federal highway system has a sizeable backlog of deferred maintenance which the BBB only begins to address.

tl;dr - the federal 'gas tax' does not support the neighborhood streets, and the revenue is woefully insufficient to fund our current federal highway system, requiring the majority of the funding to come from the General Fund (i.e. federal tax revenue).

Every time I dig into the matter, I find more ways that we subsidize automobile usage.

State taxes are 28.6 cents per gallon.  Mr, Internet told me that the principal funding for County road commission is the license fees and the gas tax.

It also told me:

On average, state motor fuel tax accounts for about 40% of revenue for the State Transportation Fund. The federal government also charges a fuel tax of $0.18 per gallon on gasoline and $0.24 per gallon on diesel. In March 2019

A bit more elaboration.

State road construction is funded by a patchwork of federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars. Funds are raised through the federal fuel tax, state fuel tax, license and registration fees.

I guess now  I can tell the next big mean looking truck driver that tells me about taxes and why he owns the road, "Yes sir."  Then I will pedal my bike to safety.

You see - Sometimes facts don't matter.

If he's just yelling shit at you rather than throwing stuff out his window or actively running you off the road, I think you're coming out ahead of the game.  :P

[StashingAway]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

[/quote]

That's why I brought it up- I have traveled to Europe, with the same inclinations and tenancies and access to the internet as you (I bike to work, etc). Granted, my last trip was before I dove far into StrongTowns, NJB, etc, but still the lifestyle contrast was almost hard to cope with mentally. I stayed with a friend in a five story building from the 19th century, and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"- this was akin to staying in a BnB on vacation, but it was his everyday life in a standard German city. If I had been staying in a hotel I would have chalked it up to just a vacation thing, but this was just his normal apartment lifestyle.

My suspicion is that until it is experienced it is difficult to convey- I'd wager you would have your own revelations on such a trip. In a more extreme analogy: I can convincingly describe a psilocybin mushroom trip from all that I've read and heard of it, even to those who partake, but without actually experiencing it I cannot say that I know what I would get from eating the mushrooms.

[GuitarStv]

I've always found that the idea of travel expanding horizons was pushed mostly by unimaginative people who are looking to justify vacations.  It's theoretically possible that some have their horizons expanded by hopping on a plane, but is far, far, far from the norm.

I present to you this scenario: People travel to Europe, visit a slew of walkable/pedestrian cities and towns that are absolutely more pleasant to live in than our North American cities. Now when the proposal for a more walkable city is brought up, they have a much more tangible and relatable experience to reference. While some with more advanced imaginations can do without, it's hard to capture the difference in overall feel (sounds, smells, culture) of what you are missing out on without traveling there. I consider myself fairly open minded, but a trip to Europe definitely shifted the baseline of what is desirable to me.

I've never travelled to Europe to experience a walkable/pedestrian city there . . . but have spent a lot of time walking around, cycling, and using public transit right here in North America.  Couple that with this repository of information called the internet and the need to travel to discover what is blindingly obvious didn't seem terribly necessary.  My suspicion is that it's not actually the travel that leads people to the revelation you made - it's actually getting out of a car (something that more people do on vacation because you can't get good pictures for instagram and facebook unless you're aimlessly shambling on two feet around with a selfie stick).

That's why I brought it up- I have traveled to Europe, with the same inclinations and tenancies and access to the internet as you (I bike to work, etc). Granted, my last trip was before I dove far into StrongTowns, NJB, etc, but still the lifestyle contrast was almost hard to cope with mentally. I stayed with a friend in a five story building from the 19th century, and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"- this was akin to staying in a BnB on vacation, but it was his everyday life in a standard German city. If I had been staying in a hotel I would have chalked it up to just a vacation thing, but this was just his normal apartment lifestyle.

My suspicion is that until it is experienced it is difficult to convey- I'd wager you would have your own revelations on such a trip. In a more extreme analogy: I can convincingly describe a psilocybin mushroom trip from all that I've read and heard of it, even to those who partake, but without actually experiencing it I cannot say that I know what I would get from eating the mushrooms.

You gotta be more careful with the food you eat on vacation if it's comparable to a magic mushroom trip.  :P

[LennStar]

and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"

LOL it's not like this is normal for every German. I for example have to walk 100m to the nearest bakery. Which of course is also not normal, there is exactly one street bakery left in my small town, but there are 2 "baker shops" in the discounter + supermarket here.

But yes, having a baker in less than 1km is usual in all but small villages. And back in the good ol' socialist day, I lived in the middle of 3 of them about 500m away each.

You gotta be more careful with the food you eat on vacation if it's comparable to a magic mushroom trip.  :P

You never eat bread from a good, traditional artisan baker, with a nice sausage from a small 3rd generation butcher, did you?

btw. a German saying goes: In a pinch the sausage also tastes good without bread.
Not my opinion, but in a pinch bread definitely also tastes good without sausage.

[AlanStache]

and he bought his amazing German breakfast bread from the first floor... in the morning... like it was just no big deal. I was thinking "why isn't anyone talking about this?"

LOL it's not like this is normal for every German. I for example have to walk 100m to the nearest bakery. Which of course is also not normal, there is exactly one street bakery left in my small town, but there are 2 "baker shops" in the discounter + supermarket here.

Europe is so much better, I have to walk almost 400m to my bagel place :-(  and if I want fresh bread I might have to ride my bike further down the road.  The horror!  Granted the chain grocery store is closer but at that point I might as well drive to Walmart. /s

[Just Joe]

My nearest bakery is about 10 miles. I bike there but mostly try to combine my trips or do a lunchtime bike ride to visit the bakery.

[Tyson]

Here in Denver, gentrification has resulted in a lot more mixed use neighborhoods.  Still not as walkable as some cities in Europe, but a lot better than it was 10 years ago.

[nereo]

Here in Denver, gentrification has resulted in a lot more mixed use neighborhoods.  Still not as walkable as some cities in Europe, but a lot better than it was 10 years ago.

It’s hard for me to overemphasize just how much better many US cities are now in terms of walking and cycling infrastructure than they were in the early 2000s. Even still, even in cities that have made huge strides they tend to lag behind the more cycling-friendly European cities by a wide margin.

[neo von retorch]

A bit over 4 years since this thread began, and the Cybertruck is about to be unleashed upon an unsuspecting America.

Will this propel all-electric truck adoption to new heights?

https://electrek.co/2023/11/20/tesla-bringing-cybertrucks-showrooms-ahead-launch/

Any bets on the launch versions and pricing?

[BuffaloStache]

...
Will this propel all-electric truck adoption to new heights?
...
Any bets on the launch versions and pricing?

It will certainly be interesting to see. As for pricing, my bet is ~$65k for the base model (before any gov't rebates/incentives), <$75k for a fully loaded option.
I would say this is really expensive, but then I remembered that the average full-size pickup price has also skyrocketed to be >$60k- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2023/09/29/heres-how-much-pickup-truck-prices-skyrocketed-during-the-pandemic-era/?sh=6356d49512fa

Even though I'm not a fan, I think it will be interesting to see these things out on the road. I just hope the visibility isn't as poor as it looks from all the images I've seen and so it won't cause a lot of accidents...

[waltworks]

My instinct is that the Cybertruck project will be a commercial failure but I know better than to put any money where my mouth is, since people seem willing to forgive any amount of overpromising/underdelivering from Tesla.

It does seem a bit like the 90s Cannondale motorcycle project, though. Seems like just making a "normal" electric truck (make it look somewhat weird if you must) would have been a better way to go. I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.

-W

[lemonlyman]

I think the truck will be successful if they can make them at scale. The preorder list is long enough, but getting to breakeven with enough volume will be the challenge. Other EV truck makers have yet to accomplish that feat. Tesla has proved they know how to scale, but the manufacturing for this product is so different they may have bitten off more than they can chew.

[GuitarStv]

I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.

In an accident, having all that sheet metal and rigid frame on your side should transfer the impact of the accident unequally towards other drivers/pedestrians/cyclists, shouldn't it?  Couple that with poor visibility, and it makes me wonder if overall road safety will take a hit.

[Tyson]

I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.

In an accident, having all that sheet metal and rigid frame on your side should transfer the impact of the accident unequally towards other drivers/pedestrians/cyclists, shouldn't it?  Couple that with poor visibility, and it makes me wonder if overall road safety will take a hit.

Tesla already makes the safest cars in the world, so it'll be interesting to see where the Cybertruck rates, after all the testing.

[pecunia]

My instinct is that the Cybertruck project will be a commercial failure but I know better than to put any money where my mouth is, since people seem willing to forgive any amount of overpromising/underdelivering from Tesla.

It does seem a bit like the 90s Cannondale motorcycle project, though. Seems like just making a "normal" electric truck (make it look somewhat weird if you must) would have been a better way to go. I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.

-W

It looks a little like a Delorean.  Elon is ready to introduce the flux capacitor.

[Paper Chaser]

I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.

In an accident, having all that sheet metal and rigid frame on your side should transfer the impact of the accident unequally towards other drivers/pedestrians/cyclists, shouldn't it?  Couple that with poor visibility, and it makes me wonder if overall road safety will take a hit.

Tesla already makes the safest cars in the world, so it'll be interesting to see where the Cybertruck rates, after all the testing.

I'd be pretty surprised if they crash test the Cybertruck. Only "Light Duty" trucks are required to be tested. And with current rules and regs the max GVWR weight limit (truck plus cargo) to be considered a "Light Duty" truck is 8500lbs. A Rivian is like 8535 GVWR, so I'd be really surprised if the Cybertruck is light enough to be required to test. And I'm not sure that they'd gain anything by doing it either.

[Tyson]

I don't see the point of hauling around all that stainless steel sheet, I'm not planning to get shot at.

In an accident, having all that sheet metal and rigid frame on your side should transfer the impact of the accident unequally towards other drivers/pedestrians/cyclists, shouldn't it?  Couple that with poor visibility, and it makes me wonder if overall road safety will take a hit.

Tesla already makes the safest cars in the world, so it'll be interesting to see where the Cybertruck rates, after all the testing.

I'd be pretty surprised if they crash test the Cybertruck. Only "Light Duty" trucks are required to be tested. And with current rules and regs the max GVWR weight limit (truck plus cargo) to be considered a "Light Duty" truck is 8500lbs. I'd be really surprised if the Cybertruck is light enough to be required to test. And I'm not sure that they'd gain anything by doing it either.

Have you seen any of those videos where they do actually crash test a 'regular' pickup truck with a load in the back?  It's absolutely horrifying.  The load just smashed through the back of the cab like it's not even there, crushing or decapitating the people in the cab.  I think it might have been a Ford?  But it applies to all of them because they are all designed the same. 

I know a lot of people that get trucks and one of the reasons is it feels safer to them because it's so big.  But in fact it's not safe at all, if you're hauling anything large/heavy in the bed. 

If they do show crash testing of the Cybertruck, this is one of the tests I'd be very interested in.

[neo von retorch]

I'd be pretty surprised if they crash test the Cybertruck. Only "Light Duty" trucks are required to be tested. And with current rules and regs the max GVWR weight limit (truck plus cargo) to be considered a "Light Duty" truck is 8500lbs. A Rivian is like 8535 GVWR, so I'd be really surprised if the Cybertruck is light enough to be required to test. And I'm not sure that they'd gain anything by doing it either.

Your estimate surprised me, but then I remembered I was thinking of curb weight - which I believe is expected to be in the 6500-7500 lb range.

https://electrek.co/2023/10/20/tesla-reveals-cybertruck-powertrain-config-weight-vin-decoder/

G = Class G – Greater than 3629 kg. to 4082 kg. (8,001-9,000 lbs.)
H = Class H – Greater than 4082 kg. to 4536 kg. (9,001-10,000 lbs.)

[Just Joe]

A bit over 4 years since this thread began, and the Cybertruck is about to be unleashed upon an unsuspecting America.

Will this propel all-electric truck adoption to new heights?

https://electrek.co/2023/11/20/tesla-bringing-cybertrucks-showrooms-ahead-launch/

Any bets on the launch versions and pricing?

Realized over the weekend that the recent Prius and the Tesla truck have a similar profile... ;)

[Just Joe]

Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOs

As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0

[LennStar]

Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOs

As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0

wow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.

[Tyson]

Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOs

As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0

wow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.

It's actually disturbing to watch.  Even though it's just dummies in the truck.

[sonofsven]

That test is fun and all, but all it really shows is that if you put a block shape hardened steel weight equal to the max payload capacity and don't tie it down at all it will crush through the end of the bed and into the cab.
In the real world, what would be the equivalent?
Appliances? An engine? A load of cinder blocks? None of them are going to behave the same way.
That being said, as I do drive a truck and often haul items both in and on top if the truck, I do take safety seriously.
The reality is that even a small item in the back of a truck has the potential to cause serious damage to a human.

[Tyson]

That test is fun and all, but all it really shows is that if you put a block shape hardened steel weight equal to the max payload capacity and don't tie it down at all it will crush through the end of the bed and into the cab.
In the real world, what would be the equivalent?
Appliances? An engine? A load of cinder blocks? None of them are going to behave the same way.
That being said, as I do drive a truck and often haul items both in and on top if the truck, I do take safety seriously.
The reality is that even a small item in the back of a truck has the potential to cause serious damage to a human.

Of course, I grew up in the south (Texas) and pretty much everyone I knew had some kind of pickup truck.  Looking at the manufacturers, if you are going to design a vehicle to haul heavy things, you really need to re-inforce the hell out of the rear of the cabin.  I'd always assumed that they were re-inforced till I saw that crash video about a month ago.  Shocked is a good word to describe how I felt.

[waltworks]

Compressed gas cylinders are notorious for going ballistic in crashes if you have them in the back of your truck, even if they're fairly well secured.

That said, almost nobody drives their truck with any load in it anyway.

-W

[GuitarStv]

I don't care about the safety of people who choose to drive trucks anywhere near as much as I care about the other road users that the large vehicles are inflicted upon.  More mass tends to equal more injuries.  Couple that with reduced visibility, and extremely fast acceleration and it makes me very worried.

[pecunia]

I don't care about the safety of people who choose to drive trucks anywhere near as much as I care about the other road users that the large vehicles are inflicted upon.  More mass tends to equal more injuries.  Couple that with reduced visibility, and extremely fast acceleration and it makes me very worried.

Quite a number of years back I bought a small truck.  In addition to all the stuff just mentioned, I learned that in 2 wheel drive, the traction can just suck.  You end up carrying bags of sand,r blocks or hay bales to get the weight on the back end.  Maybe they drive the front wheels in 2 wheel drive these days or maybe there's some sort of all wheel drive, but I kinda doubt it.

[neo von retorch]

Maybe they drive the front wheels in 2 wheel drive these days or maybe there's some sort of all wheel drive, but I kinda doubt it.

Body-on-frame (mid-size / full-size) trucks default to RWD (rear-wheel drive), and in the lower half of the continental U.S., are quite common. Go further North and most truck buyers opt for 4WD (four-wheel drive), which adds a transfer case to send power to the front wheels in addition to the rear. But each axle may or may not have a (manual, automatic, or electronic) locking differential depending on options and set-up, so you are often just going from "one wheel drive" to "two wheel drive." For serious off-roading, you get the locking differential for true "four wheel drive." Unibody vehicles such as the Honda Ridgeline or Ford Maverick tend to be FWD (front-wheel drive) and have AWD options - "all-wheel drive" uses some wizardry to send power to multiple wheels and prevent/reduce wheel spin where there's no traction.

Electric trucks may have a motor at each axle, and can be effectively AWD vehicles. As we see with the Chevrolet Blazer EV, it's possible to configure EVs as FWD, RWD or AWD!

[sonofsven]

That test is fun and all, but all it really shows is that if you put a block shape hardened steel weight equal to the max payload capacity and don't tie it down at all it will crush through the end of the bed and into the cab.
In the real world, what would be the equivalent?
Appliances? An engine? A load of cinder blocks? None of them are going to behave the same way.
That being said, as I do drive a truck and often haul items both in and on top if the truck, I do take safety seriously.
The reality is that even a small item in the back of a truck has the potential to cause serious damage to a human.

Of course, I grew up in the south (Texas) and pretty much everyone I knew had some kind of pickup truck.  Looking at the manufacturers, if you are going to design a vehicle to haul heavy things, you really need to re-inforce the hell out of the rear of the cabin.  I'd always assumed that they were re-inforced till I saw that crash video about a month ago.  Shocked is a good word to describe how I felt.

The metal in the bed is thinner than ever, and in some cases, not even metal.
You can dent the inside of the bed by throwing a chunk of firewood in.

[Cranky]

Does the "market" make mistakes?  I kind of wonder if the electric cars they are attempting to sell are not a real practical choice for consumers.  I wonder if they are not the best introduction to electric cars.  It just seems like the equivalent of the old Econo-boxes would be the type of electric car that would sell.   It would be a small vehicle.  It wouldn't need a huge range.  It would be a second car used to get groceries and the commute to work.  It would be inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to operate and easy to repair.  Even the software could be open source.  Maybe it's already out there.  The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt seem to approach this idea.  The "market" is pushing these electric pickup truck replacements.  It just seems kind of dumb.  Thanks for reading this.   Now get back to the smart comments.

I just think for this you'd need to get really cheap (like less than $10k) or it's not worth it, especially as a second car. Where do you park it? In many states you pay personal property taxes on it, in my state I have to pay $200/yr to have an EV, etc. I think in this instance you'd be better off not getting a second car and just keeping your ICE or getting an e-bike. The amount of additional gas you'd need to burn to make having an additional car worth it would be a ton to offset a $15-$20k investment. I did the math for my mom and showed her that she'd save about $3-400/yr by purchasing a Bolt (and that was just factoring in gas, it might completely offset when you factor in personal property taxes) as a second car and using that as her daily driver rather than always driving her Rav4. Obviously if you put on massive amounts of miles that could be more in savings.

I guess it depends on your personal situation.  It just seems like many families have two vehicles.  It's often a car and a truck.  Certainly, if the existing car has a lot of life left in it, then there's no point in replacing it.  However, when the time comes to replace that car, it could make sense to get an electric model.  As far as parking, if you own a home with a garage, there is a strong possibility it will be a two car garage.  I guess it depends on your personal situation.

Ok, you meant that a couple should have a cheap EV and something else. I thought you meant a person should have or a couple should have 3. That's what I meant by where would you put it. If we had a 3rd car one would have to park behind another on the driveway and out of the garage. I just had to replace my truck and I got an EV, but I don't think it often times makes sense to just buy an EV, the cost savings would take years to catch up. I was in a position where mine was totaled by someone else and I had to get a new car.

 It's damn near impossible to be a one car HH with two active kids and two adults that work out of the house. Even going 2 weeks caused some major inconveniences. Two kids having soccer practice at the same time, same day on completely opposite sides of town.

Yes - and no. Once you’ve set up your life by making a series of choices about where you live, where you work, what your kids do for fun, it is genuinely difficult to upend all that.

The same is true for social systems overall. It is genuinely complex to change our transportation needs, and lots of people will be very unhappy about the process.

But it’s certainly possible for individuals to make choices early on that make it possible to live differently.

I have never driven. I have lived in multiple cities in the US, none of them famous for their public transit, and raised three kids who had assorted activities. We always owned a car and dh always drove off in it to work in the morning. But whenever we moved, we knew that we needed to live in a place with stuff I could walk to. Travel soccer was never on the cards for my kids (for multiple reasons.) luckily, they were band/theatre/DI kids.

And you kind of have to actually look at a place to know that. Our neighborhood in Ohio has a super low “walkability” score but we walked to the grocery store, the library, multiple drugstores, lots of small neighborhood places. OTOH, an adult walking was so unusual that on more than one occasion I met someone and and they said “Oh! You’re the woman who walks!”

[Just Joe]

Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOs

As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0

wow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.

It's actually disturbing to watch.  Even though it's just dummies in the truck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs

BUT - the truck was overloaded and crashed at a very high rate of speed. VW Vanagon vs other vehicle is far better than that test. Saw an early 70s van that was crashed at 30-40 mph vs a stationary tractor trailer recently online. He walked away.

[pecunia]

Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOs

As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0

wow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.

It's actually disturbing to watch.  Even though it's just dummies in the truck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs

BUT - the truck was overloaded and crashed at a very high rate of speed. VW Vanagon vs other vehicle is far better than that test. Saw an early 70s van that was crashed at 30-40 mph vs a stationary tractor trailer recently online. He walked away.

Maybe old Ralph Nader can write one more book before he kicks the bucket.  "Still Unsafe at any Speed."

[Tyson]

Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOs

As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0

wow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.

It's actually disturbing to watch.  Even though it's just dummies in the truck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs

BUT - the truck was overloaded and crashed at a very high rate of speed. VW Vanagon vs other vehicle is far better than that test. Saw an early 70s van that was crashed at 30-40 mph vs a stationary tractor trailer recently online. He walked away.

The Ford F150 is rated to be able to haul 3300 pounds in the bed.  It's pretty clear that if you actually use it as they designed it (hauling up to 3300 pounds), you are 1 serious accident away from being murdered by your truck. 

This is outrageous.   If you use it within it's design parameters, it will kill everyone in the truck during a front medium-high speed accident.  I'm just astonished these things are allowed on the road. 

And then all the ads about their stuff being "Ford Tough" it's all downright dangerous lies. 

The only saving grace seems to be that most people don't actually haul anything in their trucks.  As waltworks pointed out earlier. 

[JLee]

Here is the Ford crash: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nZO-9EXCoOs

As for trailers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9fXXDHfl0

wow, the pickup murdered the people in there!
Compared to the trailer, it only broke a leg of someone sitting in the back.

It's actually disturbing to watch.  Even though it's just dummies in the truck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs

BUT - the truck was overloaded and crashed at a very high rate of speed. VW Vanagon vs other vehicle is far better than that test. Saw an early 70s van that was crashed at 30-40 mph vs a stationary tractor trailer recently online. He walked away.

The Ford F150 is rated to be able to haul 3300 pounds in the bed.  It's pretty clear that if you actually use it as they designed it (hauling up to 3300 pounds), you are 1 serious accident away from being murdered by your truck. 

This is outrageous.   If you use it within it's design parameters, it will kill everyone in the truck during a front medium-high speed accident.  I'm just astonished these things are allowed on the road. 

And then all the ads about their stuff being "Ford Tough" it's all downright dangerous lies. 

The only saving grace seems to be that most people don't actually haul anything in their trucks.  As waltworks pointed out earlier.

Crashworthiness has changed a lot in the last 25 years.

1997-2003 F150:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5EmJBaGeQ

2023 F150 (rated "poor" in this test):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqRDoRvb8yI

[neo von retorch]

Cybertruck

Est. $49,890*
Rear-Wheel Drive

    Available in 2025
    250 MI. Range (EST.)
    6.5 sec. 0-60 mph

Est. $68,890*
All-Wheel Drive

    Delivery in 2024
    340 mi. range (EST.)
    4.1 sec. 0-60 mph
    112 mph top speed
    600 horsepower
    7,435 LB-FT torque
    11,000 lbs. towing Capacity

Est. $96,390*
Cyberbeast

    Delivery in 2024
    320 Mi. Range (Est.)
    2.6 sec. 0-60 mph†
    130 mph top speed
    845 horsepower
    10,296 LB-FT torque
    11,000 lbs. towing Capacity

†With rollout subtracted.

*Prices assume IRA Federal Tax Credits up to $7,500 for Rear-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive and est. gas savings of $3,600 over 3 years.

Those numbers with the above * added back in:
$60,990
$79,990
$99,990 (no tax rebate)

Launch event today had Elon showing off the glass not breaking when a baseball was thrown at it, the metal being bulletproof, pulling 11K pounds further than a Ford F350 Diesel (with a truck pull sled), hitting 2.6s in a quarter mile drag race while towing a Porsche 911 (faster than the 911 itself could do). Presumably the deliveries today were of the AWD versions at $80k USD.

[LennStar]

What stupidity of a vehicle. But I can see why Musk loves it.

[GilesMM]

What stupidity of a vehicle. But I can see why Musk loves it.

Not just Musk, the boneheads who like great big strong trucks (selling in the same price range for ICE), which seems like most of the country.  Fast and with good towing capacity will make it popular.   The charging and home power backup capabilities are impressive.  Bullet-proof doors are great until someone shoots out a window.

[GuitarStv]

Accelerating a big, heavy vehicle like that from 0-60 in 2.6 seconds seems like a recipe for dead cyclists and pedestrians.  Especially considering the kind of person that would appeal to.