Cybertruck “not a real truck” says survey among truck drivers

[cvalue13]

So exactly what can your “definitely a truck” Lightning do that the Cybertruck cannot?

you’ve really lost me

this is like yellow dress / blue dress level stupid

let’s level-set:

Anyone who has ever pulled a 5th Wheel or gooseneck horse trailer knows the cyber bed angle is not compatible with performing such a task. Other than that... It's a freaking truck!

Do your Paranoid eyes just pass right over the emphatic, exclamation-point-wielding, endorsement of the CT as a truck?

The guy was point out only that as a matter of geometry the CT can’t pull a goodneck - and since he’s driving a medium-duty truck pulling a gooseneck, I assume he understands that the only thing stopping the CT from pulling a gooseneck/out m-pulling a 1/2 ton, is the matter of geometry

but do your anxious, defensive, eyes just pass right over all that to see only possible derision of your CT?!

because I see a glowing endorsement of the CT: “Other than [the geometry of the sails prohibiting pulling a gooseneck]... It's a freaking truck!

To which I replied:

Or hold a toolbox, or swap beds for a utility bed, flat bed, etc.

Folks sometime forget there’s a reason legacy trucks haven’t gone unibody / slopeback

if you want to compete in fleet, it’s a whole thing

Again, another comment about how the bed design prohibits the CT from performing some tasks that other medium-duty trucks can perform in the work/fleet space.

And if for whatever reason that comment above leaves a bad taste in your mouth for not being unequivocally fan-boy enough, just a few posts later I come back and further explain why that segment is probably so small that the CT didn’t feel the need to compromise its OTHER superior capabilities:

Personally, I think Tesla would have scratched off the idea whiteboard an unfettered ability to tow goosnecks or any other massive trailer. The battery power and charge infra just isn’t there yet, even for Tesla - at least to the extent of offsetting the competing desire for unibody simplicity of construction and the (assumed) aero advantages of the sloped tail.

As for competing across fleet, which is a surprisingly massive segment, perhaps there again construction simplicity and aero trumped any competing desire to have the portion of fleet that requires various utility bed offerings.

to which you non-sequitur inject

Issues shared with the Rivian, the Hummer, and the Silverado EV, oddly though never mentioned as a big concern for those vehicles. Weirdly a unique concern for the Cybertruck.

Not weirdly, because the people you’re @‘ing don’t think those vehicles are even relevent to the conversation.

part of the problem seems to be you and @Crissa can’t help but think of anything but 1/2-ton, light-duty trucks as comparisons

when I see a guy post a picture of him using his medium-duty truck pulling a gooseneck, and so obviously familiar with how trucks work, and saying “it’s a freaking truck!” we are not taking about 1/2 trucks

jebus

Sponsored

 

[Ogre]

let’s level-set:





jebus

You on a thread titled Cybertruck is not a real truck spewing the same stupid shit I hear from the “Cybertruck is not a real truck” dumb shits and wondering who needs a level-set?


You are literally babbling about how Tesla “needs“ a bunch of features to be competitive while you drive around in a truck which lacks those same features…

AND I need the level set?

 

[cvalue13]

This is literally what the truck is designed to compete with.

Not sure how you missed that memo. The F250 sells in very small numbers compared to the F150. The 150 is spot on exactly what Tesla is targeting. Watch the launch night video again if you are this punched out,

Are you drunk?

Re-read the rest of the post

the CT is of course “competing” with the MARKET for F150s, by having the footprint/envelope of an F150 while otherwise eclipsing it’s capabilities by having F250/350 like stats

so past talking about the MARKET for F150s is the SEPARATE discussion of its relative capabilities comparison

Tesla reps have said that the CT will likely be a categorized as Class 2B-3 medium-duty truck

You on a thread titled Cybertruck is not a real truck spewing the same stupid shit I hear from the “Cybertruck is not a real truck” dumb shits and wondering who needs a level-set?

You’re so butthurt by the thread title that your reading comprehension of a post within the thread is compromised?

You’re also posting on this thread - does that mean all your posts are AGREEING with the thread title?

You’re so clearly now just lashing out from corner you painted yourself into its … embarrassing for you.

Put the keyboard away. Goodnight

 

[Ogre]

Are you drunk?

Re-read the rest of the post

the CT is of course “competing” with the MARKET for F150s, by having the footprint/envelope of an F150 while otherwise eclipsing it’s capabilities by having F250/350 like stats

so past talking about the MARKET for F150s is the SEPARATE discussion of its relative capabilities comparison

Tesla reps have said that the CT will likely be a categorized as Class 2B-3 medium-duty truck




You’re so butthurt by the thread title that your reading comprehension of a post within the thread is compromised?

You’re also posting on this thread - does that mean all your posts are AGREEING with the thread title?

You’re so clearly now just lashing out from corner you painted yourself into its … embarrassing for you.

Put the keyboard away. Goodnight

Dude. Good call.

You are getting less rational by the minute.

 

[Delusional]

A "truck" carries objects and a driver.
A "car" carries people.
Until you remove the back doors and seats, the CT is some kind of hybrid between the two that we don't really have a name for.
When I was in the Army we called it a "Staff Car"

I swear to dawg I'm ripping the back seats out of mine, and putting something useful in their place.

 

[RVAC]

A huge draw of the unveil stats of the CT was that it has the capabilities of a full-bed F250/350 within the footprint/envelope of a F150 SuperCrew with a 5.5’ bed. That’s incredible.

Accordingly, what’s NOT incredible is incessant comparisons to the capabilities of an F150. It’s exactly like a Chevy person going on, and on, and on, about how their 2500 series truck can out-tow an F150. No sh*t, that’s what MAKES it a 2500 series- they built it that way.

so which is it?

do you want to in one breath contend the CT is as capable as an F250/F350, OR

or do you want to in the next breath compare the CT to the capabilities of an F150?

because doing both, incessantly, makes you look silly. Like one of the towing-ignorant urbanites who were remotely impressed by the unveil’s tow-“battle” between a Class 2B-3 medium-duty, >8,501 GVWR, 4WD truck against a Class 2A, <5,600 GVWR, 2WD truck

Next we’ll see a commercial of a F350 Dually with 60 sandbags in the bed tow-“battling” a CT like a rag doll and your hair will burst into flames

Can't say I agree with this one. The comparisons are with the F-150 because that's the market the Cybertruck is squarely aimed at, sure some specs may approach F-250/350 territory but that's a bonus. The weight comparisons are disingenuous, that's just the nature of EV's, they're going to be heavier than their ICE counterparts. The ~300mi range Lightning is also a class 2B medium duty truck.

 

[cvalue13]

The comparisons are with the F-150 because that's the market the Cybertruck is squarely aimed at, sure some specs may approach F-250/350 territory but that's a bonus.

These are class designations of relative capability. Saying the CT merely has these payload/towing stats as a “bonus” is like saying Ford produces an F150 that as “a bonus” has the capabilities of an F250. There’s no such thing: an F150 with the capabilities of an F250 is called an F250.

Your framing above suggests you think there is some Platonic ideal called an F150, that merely happens to have a certain level of capabilities. But that’s reversing the causation arrow on how these trucks are designated. Ford’s F150 is designated a “150” because of its capabilities - that’s what makes it a “half ton” truck rather than a “3/4 ton” truck: these are class designations of the relative capabilities of a pickup.

If a truck has a certain relative capability as a “3/4 ton truck,” Ford calls it an F250. Tesla’s truck, with similar relative capabilities, calls it a CyberTruck.

With the CT, Tesla is going after full-sized pickups, period. Why compete with ONLY the F150 market if you can build a vehicle that ALSO competes with/replaces the F250/350 market. This is not an either-or proposition.

In order to compete with all those segments simultaneously, you need a truck that isn’t as large a footprint as an F250/350 (market limiting), but that nonetheless has a full 6.5’ bed, the requisite power, payload and towing capabilities, but within the footprint/envelope of an F150 short bed.

Put differently, when you say essentially “Ford doesn’t make an F150 with a 6.5’ bed and these payload/towing capabilities” the obvious and uninteresting answer from Ford would be: yes we do, it’s called an F250 because it has those capabilities (and wait ‘til you hear about F650s).

And Tesla would rightfully respond, but they’ 40’ long!

Which brings me to:

The ~300mi range Lightning is also a class 2B medium duty truck.

Purely from a GVWR perspective that’s true. But that’s also why I said the a “2B-3” - the CT is class-defying, especially for a BEV.

The Lightning’s capabilities as a 1/2 ton class truck are on the lower end of that class’s capabilities because the truck’s weight.

The CT, meanwhile, manages to have the lower end of an 3/4 ton truck capabilities despite the battery weight.

These are class designations of relative capability. Remarkable for a BEV truck, the CT has 3/4 ton relative capabilities - which makes it a 3/4 ton truck.

 

[SwampNut]

These are the same "truck people" who like to roll coal on Teslas and park sideways in Supercharger spaces. That tells you all you need to know about their opinions.

My daughter in law was just called a "fucking tree hugger" by a moron in an old lifted Bronco. She has a BMW PHEV, it can even burn dinosaur juice if needed. These idiots answer polls.

 

[charliemagpie]

A real truck has over 3000lb payload capacity, and can tow over 7000lb.

The rest struggle

 

[Jstoltz54]

Ha! Can’t fool me. Is this a “trick” question? So there

 

[Crissa]

What has nothing to do with unibody? Maybe you’re taking exception to my loose use of the term “unibody”? That *is* the colloquialism for trucks with a unitized bed and cab, and has been for quite some time

And I didn’t say anything about an F150.

The CT appears to possibly have the payload and suspension of at least an F250 if not an F350. These are platforms of choice for a whole lot of chassis-only fleet sales.

So, if the CT was capable of offering a chassis-only option, it would be a contender (setting aside whether/when utility body makers would provide options for CT fitment).

And especially for those larger platform trucks like the F250/350, the weight that the bed can hold (or the weight the truck can tow) does have a lot to do with the separation of the cab from the bed

The 1963-ish Ford first posted above was a short-lived design, because with any material weight in the bed the front doors would no longer open.

This isn’t to critique the CT’s unitized design as being in any way flawed, as it’s taking an altogether unattempted approach (that I’m sure has been well thought out).

But for traditionally manufactured bed-on-chassis designs, there is absolutely a reason the bed is separate from the cab and it absolutely has everything to do with the underlying utility needed for chassis-only fleet sales

so, “no, no, no,” what, exactly?

Sorry, I will repeat:

Your conclusions are still incorrect. You do not need a body-on-frame design to do these things.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

Sorry, I will repeat:

Your conclusions are still incorrect. You do not need a body-on-frame design to do these things.

-Crissa

my conclusion was not that to accomplish those things requires body-on-frame design

it was that traditional truck manufacturers accomplish those things with a body-on-frame that separates the cab from the bed

all apples are fruits; not all fruits are apples

 

[Crissa]

my conclusion was not that to accomplish those things requires body-on-frame design

it was that traditional truck manufacturers accomplish those things with a body-on-frame that separates the cab from the bed

all apples are fruits; not all fruits are apples

They do this because it is cheap to develop.

Not because it's better.

-Crissa

 

[RVAC]

These are class designations of relative capability. Saying the CT merely has these payload/towing stats as a “bonus” is like saying Ford produces an F150 that as “a bonus” has the capabilities of an F250. There’s no such thing: an F150 with the capabilities of an F250 is called an F250.

Your framing above suggests you think there is some Platonic ideal called an F150, that merely happens to have a certain level of capabilities. But that’s reversing the causation arrow on how these trucks are designated. Ford’s F150 is designated a “150” because of its capabilities - that’s what makes it a “half ton” truck rather than a “3/4 ton” truck: these are class designations of the relative capabilities of a pickup.

If a truck has a certain relative capability as a “3/4 ton truck,” Ford calls it an F250. Tesla’s truck, with similar relative capabilities, calls it a CyberTruck.

With the CT, Tesla is going after full-sized pickups, period. Why compete with ONLY the F150 market if you can build a vehicle that ALSO competes with/replaces the F250/350 market. This is not an either-or proposition.

In order to compete with all those segments simultaneously, you need a truck that isn’t as large a footprint as an F250/350 (market limiting), but that nonetheless has a full 6.5’ bed, the requisite power, payload and towing capabilities, but within the footprint/envelope of an F150 short bed.

Put differently, when you say essentially “Ford doesn’t make an F150 with a 6.5’ bed and these payload/towing capabilities” the obvious and uninteresting answer from Ford would be: yes we do, it’s called an F250 because it has those capabilities (and wait ‘til you hear about F650s).

And Tesla would rightfully respond, but they’ 40’ long!

The specs of the Cybertruck are such in order to outdo the F-150, that they are in some respects competitive with an F-250 is a by-product of that hence why I used the term 'bonus'. If the primary purpose was to compete in that market segment they would not have designed a truck with sails that make 5th wheel/gooseneck towing a pain or downright impossible nor would they have gone for a unibody design that prevents it from being sold as a chassis cab.

The Cybertruck can also work for some F-250 buyers, it doesn't mean that instead of the F-150 that's what the Cybertruck should be compared against which is what you were initially stating.

Purely from a GVWR perspective that’s true. But that’s also why I said the a “2B-3” - the CT is class-defying, especially for a BEV.

The Lightning’s capabilities as a 1/2 ton class truck are on the lower end of that class’s capabilities because the truck’s weight.

The CT, meanwhile, manages to have the lower end of an 3/4 ton truck capabilities despite the battery weight.

These are class designations of relative capability. Remarkable for a BEV truck, the CT has 3/4 ton relative capabilities - which makes it a 3/4 ton truck.

The point I was making is that the GVWR classification is no indication of what segment a BEV truck competes in.

 

[cvalue13]

The Cybertruck can also work for some F-250 buyers, it doesn't mean that instead of the F-150 that's what the Cybertruck should be compared against which is what you were initially stating.

Separate two distinct things you are conflating here:

(1) market with which the CT is intended to compete - we both agree the CT is intended to compete with the full sized truck market, period

(2) quantitative full-sized truck categories of capabilities, which are defined by a few key metrics (generally, bed size, but mostly max payload, and max tow)

You’re conflating these by saying, in effect, “the CT is intended to compete in the market of F150s, it’s just a bonus the CT has 3/4 ton capabilities which will help it compete in the F150 category.”

Here’s the analogous conflation and distinction:

You: “in the supermarket produce isles, avocados compete for sales with asparagus, it’s just a bonus that avocados have seeds that can be used to grow an avocado tree”

Me: “Avocados contain a seed that can grow an avocado tree because they are not a vegetable, but instead a fruit/berry, by definition”

You: “avocados are not a fruit, they are competing for sales with vegetables in the produce section, they just happen to have a seed which makes them better at competing with asparagus for people who want their vegetables to grow trees”

Which btw, is a different conflation from people who assert in effect: “the CT is a better full-sized truck than an F150 because the CT has a bigger bed, has higher payload, and higher max towing”

analogue: “the avacado is a better vegetable than an asparagus because an avacado has a seed that grows into a tree”

To which Farmer Ford would reply, “I mean, I also grow tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, peppers, eggplant, pumpkin….”

The CT is category-shattering to the extent it has the exterior envelope of a traditional 1/2 ton truck with the quantitative capabilities of a 3/4 truck. That does not mean it’s a better 1/2 ton truck. But it does mean it can compete in the larger 1/2 ton market (due to size) while nonetheless being a 3/4 ton truck. Ford’s F250 can’t do that (nor would Ford do that to itself).

Sponsored