Confirmed: 11,000 lbs tow rating / 2,500 lbs payload capacity (official specs)! + Shatter-resistant glass

[Deleted member 20282]

Yes, the dealers don’t own it. The per diem (they do only pay per day) on that is not impressive when you look at how much back end money they get when you finance a vehicle from them or buy value adds. They are still making money. Guess what, they don’t absorb the cost. They pass it on to you. Works out on a lightning to about $15/day. So if it’s there for 30 days, $450 in FP. Some of the CUDL rate sheets are 2.25% to 2.75% flats. So they get $1,350 just for them putting a 60k loan in for you. They make 10k+ on the margin. They make money when you buy a warranty, or GAP coverage, or a wheel protection plan. And they make money off what you trade in. They are still making money. Not to mention back end incentives and such from the OEM. I suspect desperation comes around 90-120+ days, which I don’t think we are there right now. There are some dealers here with stale inventory and they still have markups on a lot of vehicles (Lasco Ford) which seems absurd. But it apparently works to wait months to sell something and make another 10k on it.

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

Compared to the cost of other vehicles, it’s cheap. You can hardly lease anything for that price. And no, interest rates don’t have much bearing on leases. Residual value does. Leases are derived on rent charges from captive lenders. They aren’t subject to prime rates like loans. Look at how the money factor converts, it’s pennies. I pay $1,200/mo for my F-350 in contrast and $750/mo for my Lightning.



The lack of value is that an ICE truck is cheaper and more capable. Why would someone pivot?



You really have no concept on the grasp of the UAW do you? They can and likely will invade Tesla and succeed considering their history. They also now bring a large pay and benefit package that Tesla isn’t close to. Would you unionize if I doubled your pay and cut your hours in half? $28/hr starting, $40/hr top end, OT options, COLA adjustments, profit sharing bonuses that have been in excess of 10k, etc.



How on earth did you come to this conclusion? LOL. The ICE stuff is paying for the EV development and construction costs. It makes good money. Ford is paying the price for building now, Tesla ran ragged for years building buildings. Ford is rolling the billions of construction into the COGS. Jim Farley has been clear on that point in earnings calls.



Absolute BS. Tesla attracts loyalists and abuses their work ethic with caffeine pills, IV’s, promises of wealth and stocks. Read the forums on Team Blind and stuff. The culture and work expectations there are toxic. The talent is just bordering on acceptable. Their claims of AI mastery are unimpressive and out of date. I worked at Apple, I worked with Tesla engineers. Not impressed. No Lidar? Idiots would have had FSD done years ago. This is my entire life, computer vision. Tesla is working with dated hardware and dated methods wasting precious cash trying to differentiate in hardware and they are terrible at it. They should have used AWS or GCP to train models, not build their own data center or chips. Amazon and Google are much, much, much further ahead in chip making.




Uhh. What? F-150? Ford sells in excess of a million trucks a year alone. More than double what Tesla makes.

Scale? How about the fact that Tesla is leaning on GM for claims help? They can’t even service or repair the paltry number of vehicles on the road. They need help from the Big 3. They need Ford’s money on the charging network.




Wow, you don’t pay attention to the bond market much? Tesla finances most things and also takes free government money, not loans. They have it easy.



Ok, now you’re just going full fan boy if you don’t realize some of that is distraction. AI Robots? Distraction. Supercomputing? What the in the hell is the point? My iPhone has more Tensor power than the entire car. Google, Apple, nVidia, Amazon all make chips leap years ahead of Tesla and operate at a scale well beyond Tesla. Tesla’s AI is verging on antique status. 10,000 GPU’s? That’s like 1 closet of Amazon? Amazon could give Tesla more compute than it has in spare capacity to train computer vision. Apple has chips in the Apple Vision head set that can do multi-sensor object detection, fusion from lidar and 12 cameras and do it with less than 5 ms of latency. Do you have any idea how far ahead of Tesla that is? All of that is a hype game for the stock. FSD, has been ongoing for so long that it’s hard to remember. Never mind the fact that they have multiple investigations and probes on this.





If Tesla made as many vehicles or as complex or vehicles or as critical of vehicles, the supply chain argument would hold up. Ford makes critical infrastructure that runs our country, Tesla does not. Ford makes the ambulance you ride in, the delivery truck that delivers, the police that protect you, the contractors that fix your house, etc. It’s apples to oranges.



Odd, I see green sales from Ford, not Tesla.



Tesla is benefitting from timing. Nothing more. Ford beat them to market with a cheap EV, guess what, no one wanted an EV when the fed wasn’t pushing it and it wasn’t a status symbol to own one. AI? Tesla has been struggling with the most basic form of computer vision, object detection, due to their own ignorance. Tesla made the market, but others will take it in the long run. And all it would take is one advancement past Electric to destroy Tesla. What if we had 100 mpg cars tomorrow? The Agile lead, Joe Justice, built one 10 years ago that did 100 mpg. What if we shift political climate and abandon the electric push? Peace out Tesla.

That's gotta be one of the silliest replies I've ever seen on the Internet. Sorry, but I have to call it how I see it.

By the way, no, Ford does not sell over a million F-150's/year, that was multiple models grouped together including F-250's F-350's, F-450's, Ford Lightnings, etc. But their sales have been declining from a peak established many years ago. Even grouping all the "F-series" together, last year they only sold 638,340 F-series in total. That's less than Tesla sold of a single model last year! The Model Y sold 747,500 in 2022, and this year will be far above that.

And that will be the last fact I look up to help you out. You can believe all the things you want that are simply not true from any perspective you try to position it, no one will stop you.

 

[HaulingAss]

Guess what, they don’t absorb the cost. They pass it on to you. Works out on a lightning to about $15/day. So if it’s there for 30 days, $450 in FP. Some of the CUDL rate sheets are 2.25% to 2.75% flats. So they get $1,350 just for them putting a 60k loan in for you. They make 10k+ on the margin. They make money when you buy a warranty, or GAP coverage, or a wheel protection plan. And they make money off what you trade in. They are still making money. Not to mention back end incentives and such from the OEM. I suspect desperation comes around 90-120+ days, which I don’t think we are there right now. There are some dealers here with stale inventory and they still have markups on a lot of vehicles (Lasco Ford) which seems absurd. But it apparently works to wait months to sell something and make another 10k on it.

That's why Tesla moves inventory ASAP and why legacy auto is a dying business. Greed. People hate greed, they want value.

 

[Deleted member 20282]

That's why Tesla moves inventory ASAP and why legacy auto is a dying business. Greed. People hate greed, they want value.

You keep telling yourself legacy auto is a dying business. And Tesla is the epitome of greed. Musk is a greedy billionaire like the rest of them. With ethics of a potato. I have absolutely no respect for him, so Tesla is no different. If they actually cared, they would sell cars cheaper. Or build them better. Or not take fed money. They are no different than any other automaker, in fact they are measurably worse quality. And they have made poor choices to keep them behind the curve? No Car Play? No customization? Some people like that stuff. Do you see Tesla being collected and restored for 100 years? Do you see cars that 60 years later are worth 100x what their original price was? Do you see brand loyalty that has people buying the same vehicle for 30-40 years?

 

[Deleted member 20282]

That's gotta be one of the silliest replies I've ever seen on the Internet. Sorry, but I have to call it how I see it.

By the way, no, Ford does not sell over a million F-150's/year, that was multiple models grouped together including F-250's F-350's, F-450's, Ford Lightnings, etc. But their sales have been declining from a peak established many years ago. Even grouping all the "F-series" together, last year they only sold 638,340 F-series in total. That's less than Tesla sold of a single model last year! The Model Y sold 747,500 in 2022, and this year will be far above that.

And that will be the last fact I look up to help you out. You can believe all the things you want that are simply not true from any perspective you try to position it, no one will stop you.

I didn’t say F-150, that was just one example where Ford has sold 1 vehicle more than the Y, they know how to make a lot of cars. They’ve been doing it a hell of a lot longer than Tesla. And I would wager that in 100 years, they will still be making more cars than Tesla.

Blah blah blah. Keep the blinders on and drink the Tesla kool aid brother. More proof that Tesla owners are worse than phone and OS wars. Stockholm syndrome, like Land Rover owners.

I will keep my Lightning, it still works unlike my Model Y. It supports car play, unlike my Model Y. It can make it up north, unlike my Model Y. And speaking of greed, it actually delivered on what I was sold when I pre-ordered, rather than pre-orders for something that wasn’t remotely as described, delivered many years late, with still incomplete features being criminally investigated for fraud (FSD, lol).

 

[HaulingAss]

And if the buyer looks at the monthly payment in and of itself, they have missed the actual difference in “monthly” costs. Look at the cost delta in payment AND fuel AND maintenance AND…

That $150/month difference in payment is more than offset in fuel costs alone.

That's true, if you drive more than a minimal amount on a daily basis. But you might be surprised how many people, when not flush with cash, will take the low initial price even though they are throwing their money away in the long run.

 

[Deleted member 20282]

That's true, if you drive more than a minimal amount on a daily basis. But you might be surprised how many people, when not flush with cash, will take the low initial price even though they are throwing their money away in the long run.

It’s a wash for me. My ICE F-150 was half the insurance too. My F-350 is cheaper than the lightning in insurance for some reason. Difference is negligible in TCO between the F-150 and F-150 Lightning so far. I don’t drive enough for it to matter. A $50 oil change once a year and a $100 tank of gas every month or two. Lightning costs about $30/mo just sitting in the driveway plugged in. Power costs here in MI, also problematic. It’s cheaper for me to charge the Lightning off my Generac whole home, sadly. We have some serious infrastructure issues in the midwest here with natural gas dominating power production and not great costs of power compared to my Seattle house.

 

[nicolae]

I’ll qualify this up front to try and stop people from getting angry and replying without reading what I’m writing. Please note the words “Nationwide” and “Averge”

Nationwide, the average consumer truck purchase is not a truck purchase. It’s a style choice. People buy because they like the look of a truck. They like the image of a truck. Just as those who buy sports cars generally don’t take them to the track. Most sports car drivers have never taken a single “advanced driving” class, much less earned a racing license of some level. Look at the same thing for Jeeps. How many Jeeps never see the off-road, much less rock crawl or drive in Baja? The fat part of the bell curve is a highway commuter. My neighbor has a Jeep that is as custom as they get. Every toy or accessory you could want or imagine. It has NEVER driven on an unpaved road, much less done “off roading”. But he likes the look. Good for him, he is happy. The fat part of the bell curve in the full size truck market is not the F350 5th wheel car transport market, or horse trailering, or 50’ boat towing, or 14k# backhoe towing. The fat part of the curve is comprised of people that like the look, and people that do light “truck” things (see the photo).

The CT isn’t designed to compete with the F350/3500 trucks. I don’t see why people are saying “I guess I’m going to have to keep my F650!” Well, duh! And when the new $26,000 model comes out, it won’t replace your F650 or 350 then either! Why? It wasn’t supposed to!

Correct! Personally I’m being more interested in the range rather in the class 3 truck towing capacity. Able to fit 4 adults with all the snowboard or surfing gear. I do not think either that CB was designed for heavy duty construction jobs.

 

[CyberCowboy]

Anyone seriously interested in this dumb “exoskeleton” debate could, if they are bored with time on their hands, read this one post and pretty much be done with it.

One has to clarify what one means by “structural”

there’s little disagreement as to whether it’s “structural” in the sense of providing ingress protection

there’s also little disagreement as to whether it’s “structural” in the sense of providing structure upon which other items can hang (eg, the door’s window/locks mechanisms can be attached to the panel, rather than an underlying separate structure - in theory)

the rigidity you describe in the panels no doubt contributes to the two senses of “structural” above, which aren’t too controversial

the remaining sense of “structural,” is that of operational-level load-bearing - eg can the castings be lighter/less beefy, and the truck still undergo load/torsion etc., in virtue of the exterior panels

that is the controversial sense of “structure”

and it’s controversial for good reason.

Arguments that it *is* this sort of structural come in varieties of eg “Elon said so, full stop” - but close exam of anything Musk has said does NOT make explicit that Musk was talking specifically of *this* third form of structural vs the first two, uncontroversial ones, above

The *other* arguments that it’s this sort of structural go something like “there are airplanes that exist that have operationally load-bearing skin, and so the CyberTruck does too” - the logical fallacy of those assertions alone should be sufficient enough for deep skepticism. And that simply can’t be otherwise known or deduced from the armchair - it requires an understanding of exactly where, how, and to what degree the panels are attached to and across the various underlying components. Anyone claiming this line of argument is way out over their skis, unless/until they have a CT in hand, have done a tear-down, and performed some legit analysis of what the operational load-bearing capacity is both with and without the skins attached.


As for those who find it unlikely to impossible the panels will have this third, controversial, type of load-bearing structure?

Well, experts in the field (eg Munroe and others in the field) are deeply dubious that what *has* been seen of the body in black, the methods of attaching the panels, and where they attach, could amount to an engineering approach that’s anything like airplanes, etc., in this respect.

In fact, regarding this third type of “structural” one CAN from merely the armchair plus available photos winnow down the narrow extent to which any such operational load-bearing structural could be possible:

• it can’t include the windshield, glass roof, or the battery pack (those aren’t even SS panels)

• it can’t include any of the four doors, the hood, or the tailgate (those are free-hanging, articulating, panels of SS that cannot provide any operational load

• the SS trim above the doors are clipped on with basic automotive trim attachments, and are to this extent free-floating

• the two front quarter panels have more obvious and already seen attachment points that make it unlikely they are capable of being operationally load-bearing, PLUS front crashworthiness would make it unlikely Tesla would ever try for this


which, once tallied, gets us down to realizing that the entire controversy about whether the stainless can provide operational load bearing structure, is about and can really only be about? The two rear quarter-panels.

on one hand, this means the controversy is pretty trivial in respect of the truck’s overall utilization of the SS as load bearing operational structure. (And is also a pretty good indication that anyone suggesting the truck’s overall SS design provides overall airplane-like operational structure, probably doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

on the other hand, when it comes specifically to truck performance, eg payload and towing, the rear quarterpanel’s may be outsized in importance.

at the same time, there’s a strange thing here where people seem to assume that better payload and towing necessarily benefit from increased rigidity - when in fact flexibility (to a point) is a key benefit of load bearing structures.


to all this, what does Tesla have to say to date?

well, they’ve laid out pretty clearly what they mean by “exoskeleton” in their patent titled “Vehicle With Exoskeleton”.

the “Cybertruck is like an airplane” crowd conveniently overlooks the substance of the 20+ page technical document with extended discussion of what Tesla means by “exoskeleton.”

That patent describes only the first two, uncontroversial, senses of “structure” - as can be gleaned from the parent’s abstract (my emphasis):

​

“A vehicle having an exoskeleton exterior panel that provides crash resistance [ie intrusion structure] is described. The exterior panel may be formed from a monolithic metal sheet and attached to an exterior portion of the vehicle frame, and the exterior panel does not comprise an additional support structure [eg like a door] At least one component may be directly attached to the exterior panel, and the exterior panel may bear the load of the at least one component [ie structure to hang things upon]. Methods of manufacturing the vehicle are also described.”​

​

The patent then goes on to describe how adding intrusion and hanging-upon structure in this was can save manufacturing costs, compared to eg adding anti-intrusion bars inside doors, and a frame inside a door upon which to hang components.

Here is the thrust of it, from the patent:

​

“Embodiments of the present disclosure relate to vehicle architectures designed such that the exterior panels of the vehicle also contribute to the vehicle's structural performance. Such exterior paneling of a vehicle may be referred to as an "exoskeleton." FIGS. 3 and 4 are views of pickup truck embodiments with exterior panel exoskeleton designs. Some embodiments of the present disclose do away with anti-intrusion bars, and instead use a durable unitary exterior panel (e.g. door panel) to provide impact protection. Thus, the exoskeleton design described herein eliminates the inner door structure and protection system, and uses only a unitary outer exterior panel. In this design, the hinges and latches for opening and closing the door, as well as door component such as windows and motors mount directly to the exterior panel. This approach may be applied to side door, roof, hood, fender, and trunk (or liftgate) assemblies of the vehicle. The exoskeleton approach may result in significant reduction in manufacturing footprint and costs.”​

What does the patent say, if at all, about providing overall operational load-bearing structure?

It *DOES* talk about it! But there’s a catch:

​

“In another embodiment [eg another concept that *could* be implemented], other externally facing portions of the vehicle [ie other than the doors etc] would also use the exoskeleton concept. For example, in a typical conventional vehicle a welded closed vertical section between the side doors of a vehicle acts as a beam to react against side crash forces applied to the body by an impacting vehicle, resist vertical loads applied to the roof in a roll over even and react seat belt loads for the front seat passenger, among other smaller forces. In contrast, this body side structure construction would convention have a thin, cosmetic outer panel welded to a structural closed section (typically one or more inner stamped sections welded to one or more outer stamped sections). However, embodiments of the present disclosure relate to an exoskeleton construction, where the outer structural reinforcement(s) are made from a single structural panel that provide the same load advantages as the more complex conventional structure, but also serve the cosmetic functions of the customer facing areas of the vehicle.”​

Here, they are now describing a different possible utilization of the patent concept, along the lines of the “airplane” concept, and the 3rd type of “structure.”. The vast majority of the patent deals with the other two kinds of structure, and in doors, etc. So the patent DOES talk about the third type of structure.

But in the next line is the catch:

​

“As such, a vehicle having a vehicle frame is disclosed, wherein the vehicle comprises an exterior panel. In some embodiments, the exterior panel does not comprise an additional support structure.​

Here they are describing the “origami” SS frame of lore. The “not comprising an additional support structure” is patent-speak for “the exterior panel itself IS the frame and there is not any ‘additional’ under-frame to which the panel is combined.”

This same distinction - between using the SS for the first two kinds of “structure” vs the third type of “structure” - is carried through in the manufacturing discussion, for example:

​

“The monolithic metal sheet may be manufactured by providing an initial monolithic metal sheet, cutting the initial monolithic metal sheet to form a cut monolithic metal sheet, and shaping the cut monolithic metal sheet to form the monolithic metal sheet. In some embodiments, the monolithic metal sheet is in the shape of a door panel. In some embodiments, the monolithic metal sheet is in the shape of an external portion of a frame.”​

All-in-all:

• the patent LARGELY describes using SS panels to accomplish the first two types of “structure”

• the patent only BRIEFLY describes using SS to form the frame itself, which frame itself forms an “external” Frame is not “additional” to any other frame, but is itself an external frame

• and so, relative to what we see in the present production Cybertruck, we very much see another “additional” frame, to which the panels are attached, and uncrontriversially do exactly what the patent describes most: providing ingress and hangs-upon structure




So here’s the most concerted, detailed, indisputable conversation Tesla has ever had regarding what it means by “exoskeleton.” And it is almost exclusively discussing the first two types of “structure.” When otherwise the patent briefly describes anything like the third type of structure, it does so by describing a method of construction that does not square with the production Cybertruck we’ve seen.

Anyone suggesting Musk has said otherwise, hasn’t paid close attention and is hearing primarily with their hopium biases.

Anyone asserting from the armchair that “the Cybertruck” SS is operationally structural (1) is glossing over that we could only possibly be talking about the rear quarterpanels, and (2) has ZERO information that would allow them to assert this on any basis (assuming they haven’t done an tear-down and load-path tests. And meanwhile, the Tesla patent doesn’t square with these armchair assertions at all.

Instead, the patent describes what we’ve seen in the doors, hood, and tailgate of the production CT. As for the rear quarterpanels, the patent doesn’t square at all with the construction method we’ve seen.

Is it possible that, when it comes to the rear quarterpanels, Tesla has done some off-patent form of engineeering whereby - unlikely as it seems - the rear QPs are somehow attached to the cab/castings in such a way as to *contribute* to operational load bearing structure? I suppose it’s possible, but the more images we see, and when squares with what Tesla has said in the parent, it sure seems unlikely.

And in any event, the crowd of “the SS provides operational load-bearing structure” is at best overstating the point (only the rear QPs are even theoretically possible), and also asserting as fact from their armchair things they can’t possibly know, not to mention things at odds with the only information Tesla has explicitly described.

SO YES - IT’S EXACTLY THE TYPE OF ‘EXOSKELETON’ TESLA HAS DESCRIBED, INSOFAR AS TESLA HAS ONLY DESCRIBED PROVIDING INGRESS PROTECTION AND HANG-UPON STRUCTURE.

BUT NO - TESLA’S EXPLICIT DESCRIPTION OF HOW OPERATIONAL LOAD-BEARING STRUCTURE WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED, IF EVER, IS NOT EVIDENCED IN EVEN THE REAR QPs OF THE PRODUCTION CT.

IF they’ve done something here off-patent, NOBODY here has the ability to surmise it from their armchair.

So...yeah, it's an exoskeleton...

 

[cvalue13]

So...yeah, it's an exoskeleton...

And this is a Veg-O-Matic

 

[CyberCowboy]

Compared to the cost of other vehicles, it’s cheap. You can hardly lease anything for that price. And no, interest rates don’t have much bearing on leases. Residual value does. Leases are derived on rent charges from captive lenders. They aren’t subject to prime rates like loans. Look at how the money factor converts, it’s pennies. I pay $1,200/mo for my F-350 in contrast and $750/mo for my Lightning.



The lack of value is that an ICE truck is cheaper and more capable. Why would someone pivot?



You really have no concept on the grasp of the UAW do you? They can and likely will invade Tesla and succeed considering their history. They also now bring a large pay and benefit package that Tesla isn’t close to. Would you unionize if I doubled your pay and cut your hours in half? $28/hr starting, $40/hr top end, OT options, COLA adjustments, profit sharing bonuses that have been in excess of 10k, etc.



How on earth did you come to this conclusion? LOL. The ICE stuff is paying for the EV development and construction costs. It makes good money. Ford is paying the price for building now, Tesla ran ragged for years building buildings. Ford is rolling the billions of construction into the COGS. Jim Farley has been clear on that point in earnings calls.



Absolute BS. Tesla attracts loyalists and abuses their work ethic with caffeine pills, IV’s, promises of wealth and stocks. Read the forums on Team Blind and stuff. The culture and work expectations there are toxic. The talent is just bordering on acceptable. Their claims of AI mastery are unimpressive and out of date. I worked at Apple, I worked with Tesla engineers. Not impressed. No Lidar? Idiots would have had FSD done years ago. This is my entire life, computer vision. Tesla is working with dated hardware and dated methods wasting precious cash trying to differentiate in hardware and they are terrible at it. They should have used AWS or GCP to train models, not build their own data center or chips. Amazon and Google are much, much, much further ahead in chip making.




Uhh. What? F-150? Ford sells in excess of a million trucks a year alone. More than double what Tesla makes.

Scale? How about the fact that Tesla is leaning on GM for claims help? They can’t even service or repair the paltry number of vehicles on the road. They need help from the Big 3. They need Ford’s money on the charging network.




Wow, you don’t pay attention to the bond market much? Tesla finances most things and also takes free government money, not loans. They have it easy.



Ok, now you’re just going full fan boy if you don’t realize some of that is distraction. AI Robots? Distraction. Supercomputing? What the in the hell is the point? My iPhone has more Tensor power than the entire car. Google, Apple, nVidia, Amazon all make chips leap years ahead of Tesla and operate at a scale well beyond Tesla. Tesla’s AI is verging on antique status. 10,000 GPU’s? That’s like 1 closet of Amazon? Amazon could give Tesla more compute than it has in spare capacity to train computer vision. Apple has chips in the Apple Vision head set that can do multi-sensor object detection, fusion from lidar and 12 cameras and do it with less than 5 ms of latency. Do you have any idea how far ahead of Tesla that is? All of that is a hype game for the stock. FSD, has been ongoing for so long that it’s hard to remember. Never mind the fact that they have multiple investigations and probes on this.





If Tesla made as many vehicles or as complex or vehicles or as critical of vehicles, the supply chain argument would hold up. Ford makes critical infrastructure that runs our country, Tesla does not. Ford makes the ambulance you ride in, the delivery truck that delivers, the police that protect you, the contractors that fix your house, etc. It’s apples to oranges.



Odd, I see green sales from Ford, not Tesla.



Tesla is benefitting from timing. Nothing more. Ford beat them to market with a cheap EV, guess what, no one wanted an EV when the fed wasn’t pushing it and it wasn’t a status symbol to own one. AI? Tesla has been struggling with the most basic form of computer vision, object detection, due to their own ignorance. Tesla made the market, but others will take it in the long run. And all it would take is one advancement past Electric to destroy Tesla. What if we had 100 mpg cars tomorrow? The Agile lead, Joe Justice, built one 10 years ago that did 100 mpg. What if we shift political climate and abandon the electric push? Peace out Tesla.

HaulingAss, your laughter emoji is right on point! This guy is clearly delusional (I'm granting him the benefit of believing that he actually believes what he's saying to be true). Don't feed the trolls, no further feedback is required...

 

[CyberCowboy]

You keep telling yourself legacy auto is a dying business. And Tesla is the epitome of greed. Musk is a greedy billionaire like the rest of them. With ethics of a potato. I have absolutely no respect for him, so Tesla is no different. If they actually cared, they would sell cars cheaper. Or build them better. Or not take fed money. They are no different than any other automaker, in fact they are measurably worse quality. And they have made poor choices to keep them behind the curve? No Car Play? No customization? Some people like that stuff. Do you see Tesla being collected and restored for 100 years? Do you see cars that 60 years later are worth 100x what their original price was? Do you see brand loyalty that has people buying the same vehicle for 30-40 years?

Your occupation is mistaken (on purpose?) you are obviously a comedian, not my flavor of comedy but now I understand you better...

 

[CyberCowboy]

I didn’t say F-150, that was just one example where Ford has sold 1 vehicle more than the Y, they know how to make a lot of cars. They’ve been doing it a hell of a lot longer than Tesla. And I would wager that in 100 years, they will still be making more cars than Tesla.

Blah blah blah. Keep the blinders on and drink the Tesla kool aid brother. More proof that Tesla owners are worse than phone and OS wars. Stockholm syndrome, like Land Rover owners.

I will keep my Lightning, it still works unlike my Model Y. It supports car play, unlike my Model Y. It can make it up north, unlike my Model Y. And speaking of greed, it actually delivered on what I was sold when I pre-ordered, rather than pre-orders for something that wasn’t remotely as described, delivered many years late, with still incomplete features being criminally investigated for fraud (FSD, lol).

Thank you for your Model Y purchase, I hope it was the Performance model?

 

[RVAC]

An “HD” version of the Cybertruck doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, the 3/4+ ton segment is where the sails and unibody construction do become a real problem, and where you don’t want to be giving up ~500 lbs of payload to bulletproof ss panels either.

Tesla should go for what they teased back in 2017, traditional body on frame design with styling cues from the Semi:

The number is much higher than 17%. It’s been in the 30’s. Was 34% in 2016 last number I could find. Ever since Ford created Ford Pro and broke out earnings it’s harder to see. But Ford Pro was 28% of revenue. That’s nothing to sneeze at when you look at it as Fords Pro biz is almost the entire Tesla car revenue. Look at the 2023 quarters data. A lot of post Covid growth this year.

purely talking f150 as that’s really the core competitor right now.

Less than 20% of F-150s go to fleets:

https://fordauthority.com/2023/03/most-ford-f-150-pickups-sold-in-2022-went-to-retail-buyers/

Sponsored