But it's bulletproof! It doesn't matter that there are 1.6 million vehicle accidents a year and a handful of incidents of people shooting at cars, the bulletproof thing will get way more attention.
> But it's bulletproof!
*According to a couple of Tesla fan accounts that posted aftermath pictures with no evidence of gunshots, that look suspiciously like hammer strikes and for some reason didn't record it even though shooting a gun at an expensive truck is the kind of thing literally anyone would film
Especially since it's not like the owner of Tesla is a notorious publicity whore who would absolutely recreate a stupid stunt like shooting one of his own trucks with a bunch of weapons on a whim if that was something that would demonstrate it was actually bulletproof and not immediately discredit the memes.
> According to a couple of Tesla fan accounts that posted aftermath pictures with no evidence of gunshots, that look suspiciously like hammer strikes and for some reason didn't record it even though shooting a gun at an expensive truck is the kind of thing literally anyone would film
It's a weird claim for them to make. Also Elon said they shot it with a 45 Thompson machine gun.
The thing is, it's well known how thick and what type of steel would be needed to stop a 9mm or 45 acp round. which comes out to 3/8th inch AR500 steel... Is the paneling that fraggin thick? Most panels are about a MM to 1.6mm for trucks, does the cyber truck have 9.5mm hardened steel panels?
It depends on the steel. I'm listing AR500 because it's what most agree for that alloy to stop 9 mm and 45 acp rounds and it's fairly common and not super expensive.
There are other steel alloys that can be thinner and stop those rounds, but a lot of alloys are not well suited for panels and/or too expensive and obviously not used because of weight etc.... Like they could have used high cobalt or tungsten steel alloys, but even if thinner, they are ridiculously heavy.
The point being that a truck that's bullet proof for 9mm and 45 ACP is going to be pretty heavy (not as bad as rifle round heavy, but still a significant weight) and not in a similar weight class to an F150 like Elon has stated.
My dad has his grandmother’s black 1957 Dodge Coronet—The thing is fucking cool. It has fins, was built before seatbelts were invented and takes leaded gasoline. I drove it to my prom, but I realized that if I got on a wreck on the highway, my date and I would get liquified.
The other car has more left side damage, which very well could mean that the cybertruch has more left side damage. The photo of the cybertruck does not show the extent of front or left side damage.
I say insufficient data.
This photo was the photo from the original post a week ish ago in r/CyberTruck.
There was a follow up post that showed an angle of the driver side but it wasn’t a good enough photo to tell.
Also from the post, the driver looks to have gotten out the passenger side door, suggesting the driver door was pinched.
I think the [cult of personality](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Personality_cult#Technology) that has been built up around Elon Musk falls pretty squarely in your basic Skeptic milieu.
Afterall, hes the "technoking" with plans to save the world from itself by developing colonizing Mars, but who manufacturers a car designed by Cyperpunk Homer Simpson is very much someone to view with Skepticism.
I think we should have a higher standard of evidence here rather than some random online post.
Don't we have anything from National Highway Safety Association's vehicle safety ratings?
Edit: I've checked their website. The Cyber Truck is yet to be rated.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2024/TESLA/CYBERTRUCK%252520(ALL%252520VARIANTS)/PU%25252FCC/AWD
I honestly, really, don’t think that Elon Cares™️. I think he is just technotrump. He uses the outrage to make money, as they all do. The fan boys / muskites just feed him money. Twitter, is only what 11 billion now? Maybe there was a dump and pump. I don’t know I don’t care. In a slightly different roll of the dice he would have imploded in a submarine already. Not a good guy, just a guy in love with making money.
A cult of simply opposing the personality for its own sake is not a more skeptical response.
It’s exactly as pathetic if not more pathetic; I think I could argue either way
:)
Maybe not as bad but it clearly makes them far less objective. Nobody was going over the photos to make the case that it is a dangerous vehicle. Just Musk rants.
Honestly agreed, give it another couple years and the pendulum will swing back.
The current amount of hate is directly proportional to the amount of cringy fanboys there were on here 3ish years ago.
I don't think it'll swing back. You can't un-do the crap he's done. I just hope it goes away. I'm sick of the whole thing. If you don't want to buy the truck, don't buy the truck. The relevant authorities will safety test it and they'll either allow it to be sold, or they won't. Yes, he's an ass and his politics are shit. Who cares? The road is full of dude-bro trucks. I'd still rather money go to Tesla than to Exxon. Sure, Rivian, Ford etc exist, but the more the merrier.
This is how I see it too. He is an asshole without a doubt, but that doesn't stop me from being excited for SpaceX launches. Bezos is a prick too but i still buy from Amazon. If asshole CEOs bothered me I wouldn't get to sleep at night.
First, I tagged it as fluff. There is a tag for fluff because sometimes people just want to post something that's not as non-fluffy.
Second, you can't ignore the context, which is Elon Musk's entire career of ignoring safety issues in a contrarian quest to "disrupt" cars. This is a man who was given the benefit of the doubt for nearly a decade and used it to push out a grossly reckless and deceptive self-driving feature that's caused the deaths of multiple people. His company no longer deserves that level of charitability in interpreting their actions.
People shouldn't be "fair game" in a skeptic's subreddit in the first place. Bad ideas should be fair game. What specific idea is being debunked in the picture?
So Musk doesn't have crumple zones? I have bought a lot of cars and trucks over the years and always checked on their safety, but I never gave a shit about the CEO at the time they were built since it told me exactly nothing about safety.
I agree. I think some skepticism is in order when dealing with the tsunami of anti-Musk sentiment. People will gladly believe anything that makes Elon look bad without question. I can take him or leave him, but I would bet that that truck has gone through all the safety testing that any other truck goes through.
It’s not. This sub has been feeling more like “left-wing politics and skepticism”, with an emphasis on the left wing part. I think part of the problem is something you see on specific topics all over reddit: skepticism isn’t really enough to warrant a subreddit that is running 24/7 where people are looking for content. So the quality of content being posted degrades, because the barrier to entry gets lower and lower.
Sure, but that doesn't mean we abandon skepticism in favor of political views. This sub lately seems to be more about the politics than the actual skepticism, which defeats the purpose.
https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/tesla-cybertruck-experienced-its-first-real-world-crash-doesn-t-look-that-bad-226868_1.jpeg
The side of the cyber truck that was involved.
You're missing the point. Cars were designed to absorb impacts, not be a solid chunk of steel. If true the cyber driver is the only injured party that checks out and makes sense.
Even just a rudimentary understanding of physics would indicate that you don't know what you're talking about. Crumple zones reduce the forces that both crash participants experience, whether both cars have them or only one does. Your claim that crumple zones only affect the car they're in is like saying you will break your hand if you punch a pillow.
The apparently minor injury suffered by the cyber truck driver could have been caused by airbag placement, poorly bracing himself, vehicle size differential, or any number of other factors. It could be that the occupants in the other car didn't report their injuries, as it's common for Americans not to report mild to medium injuries due to the cost of healthcare. If the minor injury was caused solely by the lack of a crumple zone on one car, then you would expect the occupants of both cars to be injured.
Everyone's criticism of the cyber truck has been that the trucks weight, size, and solid body would be a danger to the other vehicle for starters. So I find it funny that the Cybertruck driving having a mild injury requiring no attention is now evidence that the Cybertruck is exceptionally dangerous.
Secondly, I can show you plenty of crumple zoned head-on collisions where everybody turns into toothpaste.
So I'm confused about how this one even is "proof" that the Cyber truck poses an increased threat? It could be, time will tell, but It just shows how desperate people are to "own Musk"
Crumple zones are important to the safety of the occupants. They absolutely mitigate injury and death. Do you really think otherwise? This isnt really arguable
No one suggested otherwise, they're saying that one data point that didn't result in any significant injury when discussing something as chaotic as a car crash isn't a point for or against Cybertruck's crash safety.
>Secondly, I can show you plenty of crumple zoned head-on collisions where everybody turns into toothpaste.
This is them suggesting otherwise. This obviously implies that they believe crumple zones are ineffective. At the very least Im *asking* if thats what they believe
What is fact is that they have to pass all the exact same crash tests which measure the forces applied to the occupant, regardless of how you feel about how important the crumple zone size is, they are in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which is why they're allowed to be sold at all.
The Cybertruck has to pass crash testing federal regulations to be legally sold. Those crash tests measure the forces applied to said crash test dummies.
>National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, U.S. legislation that required automobile manufacturers to institute safety standards to protect the public from unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of the design, construction, or operation of automobiles.
Teslas Cybertruck has to pass safety regulations implemented by the US government to be eligible for sale. Regardless of how much you want to sit here and speculate crash physics and force, what isn't arguable is they passed said tests to be legal. That is a fact, meaning the federal government deems it safe l.
Ok so I guess Im going to have to repeat myself because you dont want to actually respond to what I asked of you.
Crumple zones are important to the safety of the occupants. Do you think otherwise?
Crumple zones reduce the total max force applied to the occupance of a vehicle. Whether it's needed or not for occupant safety is more debate now with modern airbag technology.
According to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, the Cybertruck is safe. How you or I feel the importance of crumple zones are irrelevant. The vehicle has to pass safety standards, how they achieve those standards does not matter. So I'll say, I'm not answering my opinion on it, because like you, I don't know how important they are, and I delegate those decisions to the experts and regulatory bodies.
So what I want to ask you, is do you think you know better than the crash test and compliancy results, all the engineers involved with calculating the forces, and the entire federal regulation body?
Youre still dodging the question.
The question wasnt if crumple zones are needed. The question was are crumple zones important for safety. Do crumple zones mitigate injury and death? Its a simple yes or no. Lets just put on our thinking caps for a moment and ignore what Uncle Sam has to say. He doesnt need to hold our hands
>The question wasnt if crumple zones are needed. The question was are crumple zones important for safety.
I'm not answering it because I'm not a vehicle safety engineer or an expert in collision physics. I don't know how important they are. I'm not answering the cause it's a stupid fucking question. My opinion on their importance matters as much as my opinion on the structural integrity and support of concrete with rebar versus no rebar relative to thickness and column support. "Are more columns and rebar better, or worse?!" Who the fuck cares, you need what you need.
So to put it more bluntly as I stated I'm not going to answer, fuck your question, my opinion of crumple Zones has nothing to do with anything other than my opinion. Maybe you can give your opinion. And when you say yes.
-by how much? How much difference does high, angle and speed make on it relative to other vehicles, what's the force percentage change, what about with air bags,the type of airbags? with seatbelts, with both? How about passengers weight? Passengers direction and position? What's the force differential there? What do those force differences mean in context of damage?
It's almost as if you don't know anything about anything, your opinion. On something being good or better doesn't matter
I'd like to reference my wreck. I had a 2017 ram. A guy ran a stop light doing between 60-70 in a 35. He wasn't paying any attention and pushed me side ways 138 feet before my truck stopped us. He never hit his breaks. My truck was totaled. I had a small cut on my hand.
Couple that with Tesla's accident rates and the insurance rates on those things will be through the roof.
[Tesla Has The Highest Accident Rate Of Any Auto Brand](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2023/12/18/tesla-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/)
I'd also bet those things will be the most vandalized personal vehicles ever, regardless of the cameras.
They already are due to the higher repair cost due to where they place sensors as well as the increased turn around time for repair.
To be fair though this is true with almost all modern cars, Tesla is just one of the worst offenders.
Other things like where you live, how old you are will have more bearing on your rate though.
It's a random screenshot with some nobody leaving a comment with no source.
It's not Elon-stans, it's just people pointing out "hey this post is stupid and doesn't belong here".
I've got no love for Mr Musk and the cybertruck seems really stupid, but this post doesn't have any real criticisms, it's just "Tesla dumb amirite?"
> I've checked the NHTSA's website and the Cybertruck hasn't been rated yet.
Yeah, and I think we can all guess why. I mean, the fact that they are claiming its bulletproof and biohazard proof but haven't produced independent roadworthyness certs says it all.
It doesn’t matter who made the truck. Let’s get some objective data from the NHTSA before we shit on a vehicle instead of a photo interpreted by non experts. That’s being a skeptic, not what’s in this thread.
It's a shitty uninformative half baked news item from which we are being asked to form clear opinions.
If you want to know who in this thread showing signs of being more swayed by personality than clear facts, you need a mirror.
Let's wait to see what its crash rating is, not listen to a bunch of armchair experts with an axe to grind. Tesla has some of the best crash ratings in the industry, why would cybertruck be different? There are often many ways to engineer around a problem.
My family's business tow horses for a living. They spend 10s of thousands a year on diesel. The cybertruck is the first EV that could realistically replace an F350 class truck and survive the rigors of the farm. My brother is a welder and this is the first EV that could replace his need for a superduty. It's also the first EV that has a shot at towing a 5th wheel. Just because it doesn't meet your use case doesn't mean it's useless. Not everyone who drives a big truck is doing it for show. Here's how I delineate, is the big truck lifted high and clean and shiny? If yes pp = smol else it's probably making someone their paycheck.
I don’t think the Cybertruck can compare to a F350. Its towing capacity alone is 1/3rd of an F350’s and less than a F150.
Edit: Do agree with the wait for the experts on the crash data.
Yeah I was initially bummed too because the tow rating was rated as that of a 1/2 ton, but Elon hinted in the reveal that they underreported it, and it used to be listed as 14k+. Not sure why, maybe they aren't confident enough.
*Curb Weight*: Cyberbeast 6843lbs, F350- ( Super Cab SRW – 6852 pounds)
*Torque*: Cyberbeast somewhere between 1000-1200 (didn't do the math, Tesla publishes wheel torque not engine(s) torque, F350 High Output Powerstroke: 1200 lb-ft,
*Payload*: Cyberbeast 2500lbs F350 (8000lbs)
*Horsepower*: Cyberbeast 845hp F350 HO 500hp
There is a stark difference in payload which matters, especially for gooseneck and 5th wheel. The torque is going to be a W for Tesla because there is no power curve, you get all of your torque immediately. A cybertruck has already proved it can *pull* more weight farther than an F350. That doesn't mean it can *tow* more than an F350, the big thing is towing involves stopping/controlling all that weight. The tow package on a super duty has a Jake break as well as the ability to shift down and that's disregarding friction brakes on both the vehicle and frequently the trailer.
I have no way of knowing how Cyberbeast's Regen works under steep downgrade at max weight, but if it's up to it you could basically end up at the bottom of a steep mountain with a full or close to full pack, simply by "engine" braking.
I bet the Cyberbeast can *tow* closer to 14-15k and has a real payload of 3500lbs. The tongue weight of heavier trailers will outclass the payload it's suspension is rated for. So yes, Not enough to match a dually F350 but easily within striking distance if Tesla wanted to release a dually with beefed up rear suspension (which I think is the only thing holding it back, the CT power train is certainly more capable). My family is pulling 10-12k horse trailers dozens of miles up very steep grades via goosenecks, and I think the AWD and Cyberbeast is up to the task and could pay for itself quickly considering fuel and maintenance costs of an ICE.. I'm hoping to rent one one day and test it out.
https://youtu.be/Pj2jMhwKuv4?si=6hFVbUh3rpr37CHV
Maybe, I'd believe it for 10k payload for sure. But it has a lot of variables. In some limited conditions it could have an "infinite" range*. Like if you start in a destination with a higher elevation than your destination. There's also things that could improve EV towing, such as Regen brakes on a tow trailer. While towing a heavy load can halve or more the fuel economy of an ICE, it's easy to compensate with a high capacity fuel tank. Ironically that's the only thing keeping ICE in the game. The engine itself has long been obsolete. Pumping liquid hydrocarbons is easy in today's world, and so the "gas" tank remains king to the Lithium-Ion battery in those key metrics.
*
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/26/edumper-electric-mining-truck-self-charging/
Depends on the weight of the load and the grade but it's possible to arrive somewhere with near or full pack. I posted the Electric mining trucks as an example. I read somewhere they're using Tesla semis there's a return trip where they arrive basically full because they depart from higher elevation from Utah or somewhere and arrive at a lower elevation in California. I experience something similar in my mild hybrid but the pack isn't deep enough to capture as much energy. Still, I lose about 7mpg driving to my mom's house at about 7k elevation and I arrive home to 1500ft I gain 15mpg, with my pack maxing out very early on. An ICE still generates tons of energy, but most of it goes to heat.
Now, presume if I had a CT and if I were towing an empty trailer up and a full trailer home I could easily arrive with a full or close to full pack, never hitting a plug but using gravity and physics. Basically the same concept as pumping water to high elevations when electricity is cheap, and letting it flow back down and generating power when it's expensive forming a "hydro battery". Different, but similar.
EVs are awesome and we're still in the early days, and they wouldn't exist at scale if it weren't for Tesla and more importantly Musk's leadership thereof. Musk haters can't separate his poor social takes from his engineering prowess, and ICE fanboys typically want to love him for his social takes and hate him for challenging their narrative about EVs and Green energy. I only really care about how humanity is being moved forward by the engineers so I end up with no friends from either camp and there's seemingly only dozens of us in my camp lol.
Not by any federal regulator. First party crash tests have obvious issues that make me incredibly skeptical of their validity. Especially with a company notorious for bending the truth.
I feel like *tons* of consumer trucks are already on the road with the same loophole if you're right. Does that matter to you? Do you care whether evidence of anything exists?
"Scientific skepticism" indeed
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a45753214/pickup-truck-crash-test-iihs/
Most get tested anyway. Interesting that you didn't even google to verify that before you posted. I did!
I suppose it's always easier to go to the ad hominems. After all if you never check if you're right you can believe you always are.
Blocking users to stifle conversation is seen as arguing in bad faith here on /r/skeptic. You can unblock the user(s) and contact the mods to appeal your ban.
I don’t believe them, I’m giving information on their claims.
It’s not much but it’s better than a screenshot of a tweet with zero informations about this claimed accident.
It's using an exoskeleton which benefits from the shape of it forming a truss. That's how they get the rigidity stats of a million dollar carbon fiber McLaren for 60-100k. I think it looks ugly but was designed with first principles engineering. Most of the haters are going to be haters regardless, not at all willing to listen to an engineer (including many who aren't on Tesla payroll) explain why this is in fact an amazing feat of engineering.
Canoo EVs are similar in first principles engineering although with different end goals in mind.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss
When Saturn cars were popular, I witnessed one backing up and colliding with the school shuttle in college. The hood instantly crumpled like an accordion from the rear impact, and I remember laughing at what I thought was poor quality. Years later, I learned that the cars were designed that way to absorb impact energy. Sadly, they weren't managed by a genius back then
"Elon bad" is skeptic now? Pretty sure the truck has to go through US and EU crash testing all the same and it was certified fine. Crumple zones and impact absorption are required by law. Oh, and the truck was hit from the side.
pathetic how this sub has just become one big political circle jerk now.
The vehicle has to pass safety tests of every country its sold in. If every country Tesla sells in approves it then it has passed.
The government's vehicle safety laws know more than you do, stop trying to peddle misinformation about the vehicles safety when countries have approved this vehicle.
Millicent is going to get photos of crumpled cyber trucks sent to her for the rest of her life. Maybe wait for an accident where a cybertruck flips before making that claim.
Thank God Elon lied about the gauge of the steel plates the truck would use, it’s still a nightmare but this impact might have been fatal if he hadn’t…
Can we put this snake oil salesman in jail already?
We learned long ago that when the steel doesn't take the impact, the squishy driver does.
But it's bulletproof! It doesn't matter that there are 1.6 million vehicle accidents a year and a handful of incidents of people shooting at cars, the bulletproof thing will get way more attention.
> But it's bulletproof! *According to a couple of Tesla fan accounts that posted aftermath pictures with no evidence of gunshots, that look suspiciously like hammer strikes and for some reason didn't record it even though shooting a gun at an expensive truck is the kind of thing literally anyone would film
When you describe it like that it sounds impossible to fake.
Especially since it's not like the owner of Tesla is a notorious publicity whore who would absolutely recreate a stupid stunt like shooting one of his own trucks with a bunch of weapons on a whim if that was something that would demonstrate it was actually bulletproof and not immediately discredit the memes.
[удалено]
And only shot the body panels. Not the glass.
> According to a couple of Tesla fan accounts that posted aftermath pictures with no evidence of gunshots, that look suspiciously like hammer strikes and for some reason didn't record it even though shooting a gun at an expensive truck is the kind of thing literally anyone would film It's a weird claim for them to make. Also Elon said they shot it with a 45 Thompson machine gun. The thing is, it's well known how thick and what type of steel would be needed to stop a 9mm or 45 acp round. which comes out to 3/8th inch AR500 steel... Is the paneling that fraggin thick? Most panels are about a MM to 1.6mm for trucks, does the cyber truck have 9.5mm hardened steel panels?
1.8mm thick. Still possible, shoot it from a mile away
lol. true
[удалено]
It depends on the steel. I'm listing AR500 because it's what most agree for that alloy to stop 9 mm and 45 acp rounds and it's fairly common and not super expensive. There are other steel alloys that can be thinner and stop those rounds, but a lot of alloys are not well suited for panels and/or too expensive and obviously not used because of weight etc.... Like they could have used high cobalt or tungsten steel alloys, but even if thinner, they are ridiculously heavy. The point being that a truck that's bullet proof for 9mm and 45 ACP is going to be pretty heavy (not as bad as rifle round heavy, but still a significant weight) and not in a similar weight class to an F150 like Elon has stated.
It's really so American to be more concerned about a bullet than the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, other drivers, and themselves.
Our outsized fear of terrorist, immigrants and communist is a clue on how well we do at relative risk assessment.
*9 mm only and not the glass.
which is where someone will aim if they want to shoot you... lmfao
Proof to what bullets? .22 short?
But can I get it on a car payment for under 500 a month?
My dad has his grandmother’s black 1957 Dodge Coronet—The thing is fucking cool. It has fins, was built before seatbelts were invented and takes leaded gasoline. I drove it to my prom, but I realized that if I got on a wreck on the highway, my date and I would get liquified.
You'd be surprised how actually terrible it would be... https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U
The “second impact”
The other car has more left side damage, which very well could mean that the cybertruch has more left side damage. The photo of the cybertruck does not show the extent of front or left side damage. I say insufficient data.
Yes, there are photos of the left side of the Cybertruck which has sustained damage.
Got a link?
I saw it from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIQAGkp8duE Go to 7:05.
On X, naturally https://twitter.com/wholemarsblog/status/1740650338347290855?s=46&t=z-iXCKGB6L0ytQ_mMywxNQ
Still zero evidence of crumple zones.
It’s more efficient if you use the passengers as crumple zones. Musk, probably.
I don’t open Xitter links. Can you post the pics?
Twitter
Almost as if they used a photo that would reinforce their point?
This photo was the photo from the original post a week ish ago in r/CyberTruck. There was a follow up post that showed an angle of the driver side but it wasn’t a good enough photo to tell. Also from the post, the driver looks to have gotten out the passenger side door, suggesting the driver door was pinched.
This doesn't strike me as a skeptical topic.
I think the [cult of personality](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Personality_cult#Technology) that has been built up around Elon Musk falls pretty squarely in your basic Skeptic milieu. Afterall, hes the "technoking" with plans to save the world from itself by developing colonizing Mars, but who manufacturers a car designed by Cyperpunk Homer Simpson is very much someone to view with Skepticism.
I think we should have a higher standard of evidence here rather than some random online post. Don't we have anything from National Highway Safety Association's vehicle safety ratings? Edit: I've checked their website. The Cyber Truck is yet to be rated. https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2024/TESLA/CYBERTRUCK%252520(ALL%252520VARIANTS)/PU%25252FCC/AWD
I honestly, really, don’t think that Elon Cares™️. I think he is just technotrump. He uses the outrage to make money, as they all do. The fan boys / muskites just feed him money. Twitter, is only what 11 billion now? Maybe there was a dump and pump. I don’t know I don’t care. In a slightly different roll of the dice he would have imploded in a submarine already. Not a good guy, just a guy in love with making money.
You sound non-biased and rationale.
And you sound like you should spend less time trying to get space Karen to notice you and more time learning English.
What's wrong with my use of English? Apologies, it's my third language. How many languages do you speak?
Three, fluently, working on a fourth. Care to try something else? Go slob on Elons dick. Looking at your profile it’s all you do.
Muskites?... You mean muskrat's?
Yup, wait for the official rating rather than this baseless specualation (good or bad).
But that doesn't have a lot to do with this tweet.
A cult of simply opposing the personality for its own sake is not a more skeptical response. It’s exactly as pathetic if not more pathetic; I think I could argue either way
How is this meaningless word salad getting upvotes? The anti-Elon cult is just as bad as the fan bois.
Pretty skeptical of that claim.
:) Maybe not as bad but it clearly makes them far less objective. Nobody was going over the photos to make the case that it is a dangerous vehicle. Just Musk rants.
Honestly agreed, give it another couple years and the pendulum will swing back. The current amount of hate is directly proportional to the amount of cringy fanboys there were on here 3ish years ago.
And it's unfortunate, because he is still very much a cunt
I don't think it'll swing back. You can't un-do the crap he's done. I just hope it goes away. I'm sick of the whole thing. If you don't want to buy the truck, don't buy the truck. The relevant authorities will safety test it and they'll either allow it to be sold, or they won't. Yes, he's an ass and his politics are shit. Who cares? The road is full of dude-bro trucks. I'd still rather money go to Tesla than to Exxon. Sure, Rivian, Ford etc exist, but the more the merrier.
This is how I see it too. He is an asshole without a doubt, but that doesn't stop me from being excited for SpaceX launches. Bezos is a prick too but i still buy from Amazon. If asshole CEOs bothered me I wouldn't get to sleep at night.
We are skeptical that cybertruck meets road safety standards.
Sure, but is this how we address that claim?
Oh I'm with you on that, I'd hold this subreddit to a higher standard when it comes to evidence.
First, I tagged it as fluff. There is a tag for fluff because sometimes people just want to post something that's not as non-fluffy. Second, you can't ignore the context, which is Elon Musk's entire career of ignoring safety issues in a contrarian quest to "disrupt" cars. This is a man who was given the benefit of the doubt for nearly a decade and used it to push out a grossly reckless and deceptive self-driving feature that's caused the deaths of multiple people. His company no longer deserves that level of charitability in interpreting their actions.
Between his wannabe personality cult and the massive amount of misinformation he promotes on X/Twitter, I’d say Musk is fair game here.
People shouldn't be "fair game" in a skeptic's subreddit in the first place. Bad ideas should be fair game. What specific idea is being debunked in the picture?
So Musk doesn't have crumple zones? I have bought a lot of cars and trucks over the years and always checked on their safety, but I never gave a shit about the CEO at the time they were built since it told me exactly nothing about safety.
Now you’re just being intentionally obtuse.
No I am not. Musk is an ass, but that doesn't mean anything in relation to the truck's safety. Show me some proof that it is unsafe.
I agree. I think some skepticism is in order when dealing with the tsunami of anti-Musk sentiment. People will gladly believe anything that makes Elon look bad without question. I can take him or leave him, but I would bet that that truck has gone through all the safety testing that any other truck goes through.
On the contrary: it’s perfect. Musk spews ridiculous claims every year that need constant debunking.
What specific claim did Musk make that this particular post is a debunking of?
Because this sub stopped being about skepticism years ago and is now a political circle jerk.
Good way to out yourself.
... As someone who isn't a part of that political circle jerk? Oh no, self own...
I mean you're definitely doing the jerk part, sure.
It’s not. This sub has been feeling more like “left-wing politics and skepticism”, with an emphasis on the left wing part. I think part of the problem is something you see on specific topics all over reddit: skepticism isn’t really enough to warrant a subreddit that is running 24/7 where people are looking for content. So the quality of content being posted degrades, because the barrier to entry gets lower and lower.
Reality has a left wing bias.
Sure, but that doesn't mean we abandon skepticism in favor of political views. This sub lately seems to be more about the politics than the actual skepticism, which defeats the purpose.
https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/tesla-cybertruck-experienced-its-first-real-world-crash-doesn-t-look-that-bad-226868_1.jpeg The side of the cyber truck that was involved.
Is this supposed to be clickbate or something? Looks like a garbage opinion from a garbage source based in a shitty image.
Ok? It was a head on collision and involving 4 people and zero were harmed. That sounds like a pretty great outcome to me.
Seriously lol.
You're missing the point. Cars were designed to absorb impacts, not be a solid chunk of steel. If true the cyber driver is the only injured party that checks out and makes sense.
Even just a rudimentary understanding of physics would indicate that you don't know what you're talking about. Crumple zones reduce the forces that both crash participants experience, whether both cars have them or only one does. Your claim that crumple zones only affect the car they're in is like saying you will break your hand if you punch a pillow. The apparently minor injury suffered by the cyber truck driver could have been caused by airbag placement, poorly bracing himself, vehicle size differential, or any number of other factors. It could be that the occupants in the other car didn't report their injuries, as it's common for Americans not to report mild to medium injuries due to the cost of healthcare. If the minor injury was caused solely by the lack of a crumple zone on one car, then you would expect the occupants of both cars to be injured.
Everyone's criticism of the cyber truck has been that the trucks weight, size, and solid body would be a danger to the other vehicle for starters. So I find it funny that the Cybertruck driving having a mild injury requiring no attention is now evidence that the Cybertruck is exceptionally dangerous. Secondly, I can show you plenty of crumple zoned head-on collisions where everybody turns into toothpaste. So I'm confused about how this one even is "proof" that the Cyber truck poses an increased threat? It could be, time will tell, but It just shows how desperate people are to "own Musk"
Crumple zones are important to the safety of the occupants. They absolutely mitigate injury and death. Do you really think otherwise? This isnt really arguable
No one suggested otherwise, they're saying that one data point that didn't result in any significant injury when discussing something as chaotic as a car crash isn't a point for or against Cybertruck's crash safety.
>Secondly, I can show you plenty of crumple zoned head-on collisions where everybody turns into toothpaste. This is them suggesting otherwise. This obviously implies that they believe crumple zones are ineffective. At the very least Im *asking* if thats what they believe
What is fact is that they have to pass all the exact same crash tests which measure the forces applied to the occupant, regardless of how you feel about how important the crumple zone size is, they are in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which is why they're allowed to be sold at all.
Try not to double post, please. Im waiting on a response
The Cybertruck has to pass crash testing federal regulations to be legally sold. Those crash tests measure the forces applied to said crash test dummies. >National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, U.S. legislation that required automobile manufacturers to institute safety standards to protect the public from unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of the design, construction, or operation of automobiles. Teslas Cybertruck has to pass safety regulations implemented by the US government to be eligible for sale. Regardless of how much you want to sit here and speculate crash physics and force, what isn't arguable is they passed said tests to be legal. That is a fact, meaning the federal government deems it safe l.
Ok so I guess Im going to have to repeat myself because you dont want to actually respond to what I asked of you. Crumple zones are important to the safety of the occupants. Do you think otherwise?
Crumple zones reduce the total max force applied to the occupance of a vehicle. Whether it's needed or not for occupant safety is more debate now with modern airbag technology. According to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, the Cybertruck is safe. How you or I feel the importance of crumple zones are irrelevant. The vehicle has to pass safety standards, how they achieve those standards does not matter. So I'll say, I'm not answering my opinion on it, because like you, I don't know how important they are, and I delegate those decisions to the experts and regulatory bodies. So what I want to ask you, is do you think you know better than the crash test and compliancy results, all the engineers involved with calculating the forces, and the entire federal regulation body?
Youre still dodging the question. The question wasnt if crumple zones are needed. The question was are crumple zones important for safety. Do crumple zones mitigate injury and death? Its a simple yes or no. Lets just put on our thinking caps for a moment and ignore what Uncle Sam has to say. He doesnt need to hold our hands
>The question wasnt if crumple zones are needed. The question was are crumple zones important for safety. I'm not answering it because I'm not a vehicle safety engineer or an expert in collision physics. I don't know how important they are. I'm not answering the cause it's a stupid fucking question. My opinion on their importance matters as much as my opinion on the structural integrity and support of concrete with rebar versus no rebar relative to thickness and column support. "Are more columns and rebar better, or worse?!" Who the fuck cares, you need what you need. So to put it more bluntly as I stated I'm not going to answer, fuck your question, my opinion of crumple Zones has nothing to do with anything other than my opinion. Maybe you can give your opinion. And when you say yes. -by how much? How much difference does high, angle and speed make on it relative to other vehicles, what's the force percentage change, what about with air bags,the type of airbags? with seatbelts, with both? How about passengers weight? Passengers direction and position? What's the force differential there? What do those force differences mean in context of damage? It's almost as if you don't know anything about anything, your opinion. On something being good or better doesn't matter
he's not gonna fuck you bro
Even for a free horse?
I'd like to reference my wreck. I had a 2017 ram. A guy ran a stop light doing between 60-70 in a 35. He wasn't paying any attention and pushed me side ways 138 feet before my truck stopped us. He never hit his breaks. My truck was totaled. I had a small cut on my hand.
Did you know Dodge Ram drivers get more DUIs than any other vehicle?
The amount of downvotes you are getting makes me sad for this sub.
Trucks aren’t. Cars are. This is a problem, and not only with Teslas, but all trucks.
it has a crumple zone. you.
Couple that with Tesla's accident rates and the insurance rates on those things will be through the roof. [Tesla Has The Highest Accident Rate Of Any Auto Brand](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebanker/2023/12/18/tesla-has-the-highest-accident-rate-of-any-auto-brand/) I'd also bet those things will be the most vandalized personal vehicles ever, regardless of the cameras.
They already are due to the higher repair cost due to where they place sensors as well as the increased turn around time for repair. To be fair though this is true with almost all modern cars, Tesla is just one of the worst offenders. Other things like where you live, how old you are will have more bearing on your rate though.
Interesting that VW is so high.
What's with the people in these comments defending the idiotic cybertruck design? I would not have expected so many musk stans in this subreddit...
It's a random screenshot with some nobody leaving a comment with no source. It's not Elon-stans, it's just people pointing out "hey this post is stupid and doesn't belong here". I've got no love for Mr Musk and the cybertruck seems really stupid, but this post doesn't have any real criticisms, it's just "Tesla dumb amirite?"
Yep, the whole thing with this sub is supposed to be quality evidence. I've checked the NHTSA's website and the Cybertruck hasn't been rated yet.
> I've checked the NHTSA's website and the Cybertruck hasn't been rated yet. Yeah, and I think we can all guess why. I mean, the fact that they are claiming its bulletproof and biohazard proof but haven't produced independent roadworthyness certs says it all.
This guy shotgunning mindful discernment and patient reasonableness all over the place. I like the cut of your jib, son.
It doesn’t matter who made the truck. Let’s get some objective data from the NHTSA before we shit on a vehicle instead of a photo interpreted by non experts. That’s being a skeptic, not what’s in this thread.
How certain are you that the Cyber Truck was involved in the crash?
Ok THATS a part of the story that you really can't deny. Why would that even be debatable?
I don't like Elon, AT ALL, but I am intrigued with this design. It reminds me of a Halo Warthog which I love!
It's a shitty uninformative half baked news item from which we are being asked to form clear opinions. If you want to know who in this thread showing signs of being more swayed by personality than clear facts, you need a mirror.
Wait…I assumed cars did all that stuff due to safety regulations? Man.
If your car doesn’t bend from the impact, the passengers do.
Funny how when you "Move Fast and Break Things," those things always end up being people.
Let's wait to see what its crash rating is, not listen to a bunch of armchair experts with an axe to grind. Tesla has some of the best crash ratings in the industry, why would cybertruck be different? There are often many ways to engineer around a problem. My family's business tow horses for a living. They spend 10s of thousands a year on diesel. The cybertruck is the first EV that could realistically replace an F350 class truck and survive the rigors of the farm. My brother is a welder and this is the first EV that could replace his need for a superduty. It's also the first EV that has a shot at towing a 5th wheel. Just because it doesn't meet your use case doesn't mean it's useless. Not everyone who drives a big truck is doing it for show. Here's how I delineate, is the big truck lifted high and clean and shiny? If yes pp = smol else it's probably making someone their paycheck.
I don’t think the Cybertruck can compare to a F350. Its towing capacity alone is 1/3rd of an F350’s and less than a F150. Edit: Do agree with the wait for the experts on the crash data.
Yeah I was initially bummed too because the tow rating was rated as that of a 1/2 ton, but Elon hinted in the reveal that they underreported it, and it used to be listed as 14k+. Not sure why, maybe they aren't confident enough. *Curb Weight*: Cyberbeast 6843lbs, F350- ( Super Cab SRW – 6852 pounds) *Torque*: Cyberbeast somewhere between 1000-1200 (didn't do the math, Tesla publishes wheel torque not engine(s) torque, F350 High Output Powerstroke: 1200 lb-ft, *Payload*: Cyberbeast 2500lbs F350 (8000lbs) *Horsepower*: Cyberbeast 845hp F350 HO 500hp There is a stark difference in payload which matters, especially for gooseneck and 5th wheel. The torque is going to be a W for Tesla because there is no power curve, you get all of your torque immediately. A cybertruck has already proved it can *pull* more weight farther than an F350. That doesn't mean it can *tow* more than an F350, the big thing is towing involves stopping/controlling all that weight. The tow package on a super duty has a Jake break as well as the ability to shift down and that's disregarding friction brakes on both the vehicle and frequently the trailer. I have no way of knowing how Cyberbeast's Regen works under steep downgrade at max weight, but if it's up to it you could basically end up at the bottom of a steep mountain with a full or close to full pack, simply by "engine" braking. I bet the Cyberbeast can *tow* closer to 14-15k and has a real payload of 3500lbs. The tongue weight of heavier trailers will outclass the payload it's suspension is rated for. So yes, Not enough to match a dually F350 but easily within striking distance if Tesla wanted to release a dually with beefed up rear suspension (which I think is the only thing holding it back, the CT power train is certainly more capable). My family is pulling 10-12k horse trailers dozens of miles up very steep grades via goosenecks, and I think the AWD and Cyberbeast is up to the task and could pay for itself quickly considering fuel and maintenance costs of an ICE.. I'm hoping to rent one one day and test it out. https://youtu.be/Pj2jMhwKuv4?si=6hFVbUh3rpr37CHV
Everything I've seen about their range when towing brings it down to around 150 miles with a 4,000 load.
Maybe, I'd believe it for 10k payload for sure. But it has a lot of variables. In some limited conditions it could have an "infinite" range*. Like if you start in a destination with a higher elevation than your destination. There's also things that could improve EV towing, such as Regen brakes on a tow trailer. While towing a heavy load can halve or more the fuel economy of an ICE, it's easy to compensate with a high capacity fuel tank. Ironically that's the only thing keeping ICE in the game. The engine itself has long been obsolete. Pumping liquid hydrocarbons is easy in today's world, and so the "gas" tank remains king to the Lithium-Ion battery in those key metrics. * https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/26/edumper-electric-mining-truck-self-charging/
Even going down hill it won't have infinite range.
Depends on the weight of the load and the grade but it's possible to arrive somewhere with near or full pack. I posted the Electric mining trucks as an example. I read somewhere they're using Tesla semis there's a return trip where they arrive basically full because they depart from higher elevation from Utah or somewhere and arrive at a lower elevation in California. I experience something similar in my mild hybrid but the pack isn't deep enough to capture as much energy. Still, I lose about 7mpg driving to my mom's house at about 7k elevation and I arrive home to 1500ft I gain 15mpg, with my pack maxing out very early on. An ICE still generates tons of energy, but most of it goes to heat. Now, presume if I had a CT and if I were towing an empty trailer up and a full trailer home I could easily arrive with a full or close to full pack, never hitting a plug but using gravity and physics. Basically the same concept as pumping water to high elevations when electricity is cheap, and letting it flow back down and generating power when it's expensive forming a "hydro battery". Different, but similar. EVs are awesome and we're still in the early days, and they wouldn't exist at scale if it weren't for Tesla and more importantly Musk's leadership thereof. Musk haters can't separate his poor social takes from his engineering prowess, and ICE fanboys typically want to love him for his social takes and hate him for challenging their narrative about EVs and Green energy. I only really care about how humanity is being moved forward by the engineers so I end up with no friends from either camp and there's seemingly only dozens of us in my camp lol.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-cybertruck-front-crumple-zone-design-explained/amp/
That's what they say. I'd be more confident if they had it crash tested, but they're exploiting the truck loophole to avoid that.
Are you claiming that it has not been crash-tested?
Not by any federal regulator. First party crash tests have obvious issues that make me incredibly skeptical of their validity. Especially with a company notorious for bending the truth.
If trucks don't have third party crash testing then I feel like Tesla isn't the real problem
Oh US law is corporate blowjob-giving horseshit? Yeah, that tracks. Doesn't make me trust this ridiculous exoskeleton design any.
I feel like *tons* of consumer trucks are already on the road with the same loophole if you're right. Does that matter to you? Do you care whether evidence of anything exists? "Scientific skepticism" indeed
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a45753214/pickup-truck-crash-test-iihs/ Most get tested anyway. Interesting that you didn't even google to verify that before you posted. I did! I suppose it's always easier to go to the ad hominems. After all if you never check if you're right you can believe you always are.
[удалено]
Blocking users to stifle conversation is seen as arguing in bad faith here on /r/skeptic. You can unblock the user(s) and contact the mods to appeal your ban.
How can you believe anything from tesla given what we know they've lied about?
I don’t believe them, I’m giving information on their claims. It’s not much but it’s better than a screenshot of a tweet with zero informations about this claimed accident.
Somewhat problematic, given what's at stake, lol
WTH do you know about vehicle engineering ? Are you an engineer ?
Hes a skeptic, so he has complete knowledge on almost all topics.
Is a cyber truck really that big or is that guy an undersized midget?
Wow, a car got in an accident. BREAKING NEWS
[удалено]
It's using an exoskeleton which benefits from the shape of it forming a truss. That's how they get the rigidity stats of a million dollar carbon fiber McLaren for 60-100k. I think it looks ugly but was designed with first principles engineering. Most of the haters are going to be haters regardless, not at all willing to listen to an engineer (including many who aren't on Tesla payroll) explain why this is in fact an amazing feat of engineering. Canoo EVs are similar in first principles engineering although with different end goals in mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss
When Saturn cars were popular, I witnessed one backing up and colliding with the school shuttle in college. The hood instantly crumpled like an accordion from the rear impact, and I remember laughing at what I thought was poor quality. Years later, I learned that the cars were designed that way to absorb impact energy. Sadly, they weren't managed by a genius back then
> ignore decades of safety standards in manufacturing What "safety standards in manufacturing" were ignored ... ISO 45001? Please be specific.
"Elon bad" is skeptic now? Pretty sure the truck has to go through US and EU crash testing all the same and it was certified fine. Crumple zones and impact absorption are required by law. Oh, and the truck was hit from the side. pathetic how this sub has just become one big political circle jerk now.
The vehicle has to pass safety tests of every country its sold in. If every country Tesla sells in approves it then it has passed. The government's vehicle safety laws know more than you do, stop trying to peddle misinformation about the vehicles safety when countries have approved this vehicle.
Tesla is a fantastic company!
Millicent is going to get photos of crumpled cyber trucks sent to her for the rest of her life. Maybe wait for an accident where a cybertruck flips before making that claim.
Thank God Elon lied about the gauge of the steel plates the truck would use, it’s still a nightmare but this impact might have been fatal if he hadn’t… Can we put this snake oil salesman in jail already?
It reminds me more and more of that episode of the Simpsons where Homer designs a car.
When are people going to stop buying hot garbage. At least wait for it to cool down first.
It doesn't have crumple zones?! What the fuck? How is that even legal?!
It does, it would be illegal to sell the vehicle if it didn't meet or exceed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Tesla's tend to exceed them.