How is it function over form? They use electric motors on the door handles, bed cover, and ramp. They made the bed sides super high and hard to access the bed. It has no floor tie-downs. They gave it a glass roof where you'd lean stuff from the bed!
This is absolutely form over function, they just picked a form which is controversial.
PS - I actually like the Cybertruck. But I'm self aware to know it is due to all the impractical toys that will ultimately be a maintenance hazard. It is cool but impractical.
Uh it looks like there are at least holes where the tie downs can fit. The glass roof is kinda nuts for sure though. Those high walls are also annoying if you want to put tool boxes in your truck. It might be possible to still be practical by making some changes to how you might store things for easy access like on a normal truck but it probably can't use current existing solutions. :/
If there are re-enforced holes to add floor anchors then that definitely resolves that issue, just didn't see any on the limited press photos released so far (only wall anchor points). Kind of want someone to do a "truck bed review" of the Cybertruck, just loading, unloading, anchoring, etc.
I know, I read the article. We're talking about the utility of the design they ultimately wound up with, the "why" doesn't alter that. Designs are always a trade-off, the question is did they trade-off the correct things to make a really good utilitarian truck?
It's function over form from a DFM standpoint, not utility. Case in point, if they cared about utility, they'd quote torque numbers instead of 0-60 times. Not to mention the laughable sides and glass top.
I saw in another article that this is their first prototype, built very quickly, so I wouldn't read too much into details like tie-downs. For the rest, I guess how useful it is depends on the customer; e.g. I saw a contractor comment that the built-in battery power and air compressor would be pretty convenient for job sites. (Of course other electric trucks would at least have the batteries, but it remains to be seen whether they'll match this on price.)
>Ditch the heavy, traditional, body-on-frame, and rethink the structure as weight-efficient trussed bridge in its simplest load-spreading configuration: a triangle set on its hypotenuse. One side is the Cybertruck's wedgy cab, the other, its tapered, sail-sided bed, their meeting point at the truck's tall peak resulting in a huge cross-sectional area for maximum stiffness.
So one little mishap with a heavy object in the vicinity of the bed rails and the truck's structural integrity may be compromised. All the pros listed to the design seem valid but this seems like a very high stakes bet on exactly the functions this truck does and doesn't need to perform.
I was actually prepared to dislike it before I saw a picture of it, because I'd seen other conceptualizations of hypothetical Tesla trucks and they look sorta like they're trying too hard to look like the sedans, but end up too bubbly and cute.
However, this truck is dope as hell and I'd drive it. It makes you look like a retro-80s action star. I think I would have to grow out my mustache if I drove it, and I don't mean that ironically.
It looks like in a couple of ways, though, they maybe did go with form over function.
1. It looks the roof over the passenger compartment peaks over the heads of the people in the front seats, and then lowers towards the back. (See photo 42 of the first gallery in the article, or photo 22 of the second gallery, or photo 10 of the third gallery, or the second photo in the Ars article [1] gallery).
This could get annoying for tall people in the back seats. For a family car, where the back seat will usually be kids, less headroom there is fine. A pickup is work vehicle and so should assume adults in back and so should have adult headroom back there.
2. The walls on the side of the cargo bed are not flat. That angled line from that end to the peak of the roof does look great...but it also means that existing truck campers [2] or camper shells [3] won't fit.
My understanding is that while bed sizes aren't quite standardized, what one manufacturer calls a short bed, standard bed, and long bed will and what another manufacturer calls short, standard, and long will be close enough to each other that a lot of accessories like campers and shells can be designed to work with both.
It looks like the Tesla will need new accessories, which only work with Tesla.
Tesla missed opportunity to describe headroom in backseat. A 6'5" man sat in back seat when asked how much leg room, he said "I have days" [1] and his head doesn't appear to touch glass ceiling.
> This could get annoying for tall people in the back seats. For a family car, where the back seat will usually be kids, less headroom there is fine. A pickup is work vehicle and so should assume adults in back and so should have adult headroom back there.
4-door full-size pickups are the modern giant family sedan. Just look at one with a cap on the bed, and it just looks like a giant 1950s sedan, (edit) only taller
According to a Bloomberg survey of 5,000 model 3 owners, 98% say they would buy it again and the vehicle had surpassed their expectations. 99% percent of respondents said they would recommend the Model 3 to their family or friends.
I live in Puerto Rico where a Tesla doesn't make much sense due to the infrastructure, but these numbers still made my neck hurt with a little bit with FOMO.
I am glad there are people who buy the Tesla and like it.
I was very excited when they were first announced and was heavily considering the Model 3 as an option before it was released. Then I started reading about the features; touch screen controls, OTA updates, telemetry. None of those things are features to me, they are detriments.
Touch screen means that I have to context switch when adjusting temp.
OTA updates means that my car can end up bricked or have a buggy update.
If you disallow remote telemetry (which is an option), I wonder what it would do. You should try one for a weekend. They are a fantastic car. Tesla is very careful and successful with their software updates. You can just refuse to update them (in my 7 years of owning now two of them, I've never had a problem with updates). There have been 2 or 3 updates that were required because they were safety issues (they changed the way the s adjusts the height of the car at high speed to be more conservative in one of them). Tesla software is not like the shit software you'd expect in legacy car companies.
According to a Bloomberg survey of 5,000 model 3 owners, 98% say they would buy it again and the vehicle had surpassed their expectations.
I don't doubt those numbers at all, but here's the trick: I'll bet you could find similar numbers for just about any electric vehicle. And here's why: the odds are extremely good that if you own an electric vehicle, it's your first electric vehicle. The market just isn't that old. I bought one of the first Nissan Leafs, and it's only eight years old.
Okay, so if we can agree that most EV owners are on their first EV, then of course 98% of them are going to buy another one because regardless of make or model, EVs are just that good. Yeah, yeah, you drive from SF to LA every day, but we're not talking about you, we're talking about people that already decided to buy an EV. I'd venture that many are like me, and after a bit feel that ICEs are downright primitive. So their next car is going to be an EV, and why not buy the one I'm already happy with?
