Tesla Cybertruck Owners Who Drove 10,000 Miles Say Range Is 164 To 206 Miles::Also, the charging speeds are below par, but on the flip side, the sound system is awesome and the car is “a dream to drive.”

    • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Because Musk wanted to make a vehicle out of stainless steel and straight panels are the easiest/cheapest to form.

    • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Because we live in the version of reality where the worst idea is the best idea and we don’t actually care about anyone’s wellbeing and safety. The car is shaped the way it is to inflict the most fatalities on pedestrians.

      • The Pantser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        And the us traffic safety board is refusing to test it’s crash rating because they don’t have to. It’s so fishy that this is a new stupid design and they don’t want to test it. Either Elon paid them off or they refuse to give or sell one to test. I have a feeling it would get a 2 out of 5 stars.

    • tyrefyre@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Hey Elon stole my plans where I drew this exact thing the very first time I ever tried to draw a car. I think I was 4.

    • tyrefyre@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, but how long did it take you to refuel your metro? Surely it wasn’t faster than a few hours.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      This is a frankly baffling comparison. I don’t think I could think of 2 more different vehicles if I tried. Believe it or not, range is not the only thing people consider when purchasing a vehicle.

    • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ok, now try to do the things that trucks are typically used for in your geo metro. Towing, transporting construction tools and materials, etc.

      I’m not defending Elon because I think the truck looks dumb and is over priced, but you gotta compare apples to apples.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        i had a hitch on my 96 metro. so, yeah. and a geo metro totin a tiny trailer looks a hell of a lot less silly than that silver monstrosity

        i do see your point. but i think it misses main the issue here; that this isnt a good vehicle let a lone truck.

        • joemo@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          You’re still not comparing apples to apples. The people who actually need something like this (not this specifically because we both agree it’s bad) would not be using it to tow just a small trailer. I agree the cyber truck is bad but the comparison still makes no sense.

          If you believe them, Tesla says the cyber truck can have a 2500lb payload and tow 11000 lbs. That’s a whole different ballgame than your geo metro which officially doesn’t even have a towing capacity.

          Some people actually use trucks for their intended purposes instead of a status symbol.

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Feels like gas mileage peaked in the early 90s. Geo metro was only 3 cyl and sipped gas. my lil 92 eclipse for over 45mpg highway, i don’t even think it was rated that high.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        well, i actually had both a '92 3ycl (suzuki engine) and then later had a 4cyl monster metro. i think that was like a 96?

        just dont turn on the ac

      • Sovereign_13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The early 90s was mostly a perfect storm for fuel economy.

        You had the computing power available to make use of CAD and develop more aerodynamic designs with less significant overhead (i.e., doing it by hand).

        EFI technology had matured and carburetors were broadly defunct, allowing more efficient operation in a broader range of environments.

        The US had updated its archaic lighting regulations to allow for more aerodynamic headlight shapes.

        A lot of the safety technology that adds weight to modern cars either hadn’t been developed yet or hadn’t trickled down to the average vehicle.

        So you had a confluence of more efficient engines, more aerodynamic vehicles, and cars that were still small and relatively lightweight.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Feels like gas mileage peaked in the early 90s.

        Probably in the early '00s but I mean that’s completely unsurprising considering the strides we’ve made in safety, comfort, and most importantly emissions since then.

      • thejml@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I regularly get 43-46mpg highway with my 4 cylinder TLX, drops off like crazy atoms town though.

        I agree that economy peaked In the 80’s-early 90’s, but if you take into account how much bigger, and heavier cars are today, we’re not that bad. Also, a lot of weight and size goes towards the superior crash safety in modern cars.

  • farcaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Sigh. Not this again. Look, I personally really don’t like the Cybertruck. I think it’s ugly and pointless. But as someone who likes EVs in general I have to call out the usual “the range is so bad lol” BS.

    The two drivers who are using the EV said that the maximum range with a full battery was 206 miles and 164 miles with an 80% state of charge.

    The range you get when not fully charging the battery is meaningless. It’s like partially fueling an ICE and complaining it doesn’t deliver the maximum range. Good for a clickbait headline though.

    That test was done at a relatively constant speed of 70 miles per hour while the outside temperature was about 45 degrees. The truck was driven fairly aggressively most of the time

    Driving aggressively, at high speed, in relatively cold weather is the perfect trifecta to make any EV underdeliver in range. Those are real downsides of EVs (and weather and speed are factors with ICE cars, just more so for EVs) but it’s nothing new or specific to this vehicle. And it is not the scenario the EPA uses to come up with range numbers. Perhaps they should, but they don’t.

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Fuck yes, finally I can apply my knowledge of first 10” numbers of the fibonacci series

        • darth_helmet@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Yes it is a complete friggin coincidence! The meter is 1/10millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the equator (but just so slightly shorter than that due to measurement errors in 18th century France relating to difficulty in measuring how the earth is not-quite-a-sphere), but I’m still not sure why they landed on that ratio or that particular distance. I assume they were looking for a base unit of a size that would be really easy for everyone to estimate: if I asked you to demonstrate a meter, you could approximate it probably within 15% with your hands.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    That’s about the range of the current fiat 500e to Chevy Bolt. Both of which cost half of what this does.

    • legion02@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is irrelevant if you need a truck. Neither one of those is picking up plywood from home depot for example.

      • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Okay. The F150 Lighting has a range of 240-300 miles per charge, and an MSRP starting at $50k, compared to the cyber truck starting at $81k.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s not irrelevant. The two cars I compared it to are smaller, yet they go further at much less cost. To me that sounds like the Cybertruck is way too heavy.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          My God the comments in this thread are fucking ridiculous. It’s completely irrelevant because they’re 2 completely different use-cases and if you legitimately can’t see that, you’re literally delusional. But I’m fairly confident you can and are simply being deliberately disingenuous.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Do people know there is more than 1 cybertruck?

    Also it’s winter in the Northern hemisphere, which is going to dramatically impact range.