It's a brutally agressive looking machine - I assume intentionally so. That flat front pretty much guarantees padestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist fatailities in a collision. And over on Ars Technica they say "Musk implied that in a crash with another vehicle, the Cybertruck [...] will destroy the other vehicle." [1] - and presumably therefore kills its occupants too.
Opinion: this is the purest physical realisation of the Musk/Tesla world-view. A kind of Conway's law for cars. Deeply depressing, and the tech merely distracts from this a little. Why do we need this thing, again?
We also need more legislation holding automakers and drivers liable for the impact of their designs on other road users. I'm not up to speed on product liability, but this type of statement from Musk seems likely to invite lawsuits from anyone injured by a Cybertruck.
Hopefully the car has a good pedestrian avoidance system. Otherwise, it seems to have a large blind spot for the driver. The nearly flat front also looks dangerous as well.
Lets remember that most sedan [and smaller] cars do not fair well in collisions with pick-up trucks like the Ford F250... and neither do pedestrians and cyclists. Then consider all of the even larger, heavily industrial vehicles on the road...
Does look like the cybertruck might be even burlier than a F250... but the point is, we already share the road with "mini-tanks" [that are intrinsically more dangerous to other vehicles in collisions]. Adding one more niche model is not a significant risk increase.
Are flat fronts and apparent indifference to truck-pedestrian interactions specific to the cybertruck, or did Tesla just miss an opportunity to improve the status quo in this regard? I am trying to calibrate my Musk skepticism.
Depressing yes, but not because of Musk/Tesla. We'd be surrounded by SUVs, trucks, carjackings, and deer regardless. Unfortunately the best I can do is get the biggest steel cage possible and look out for #1.
His statement is clearly hyperbole, if anything it shows that he gave up on protecting pedestrians long ago when it became clear most vehicle buyers and the regulatory bodies don't care.
Seems like there's been relatively less attention on the 48V/800V architecture and the Ethernet comms/steer by wire setup, but I think those are what make this particular vehicle quite interesting. Up until recently I think 48V power electronics have been fairly rare outside of telecom/other high cost situations, but I suppose one major difference is that at 48V, transformer-based DC-DC conversion is usually a better choice for digital electronics compared with a simple buck, which historically seems to be a significant jump in cost and faff to design. Perhaps PCB planar transformers will help here, but this may be one reason we don't see 50V EPR USB C devices yet (disappointed that the Cybertruck didn't decide to be the first 240W USB-C device, still stuck at 65W)
Seems like if there were to be some kind of electrical failure, now with full steer-by-wire it could be quite a harrowing situation.
Based on the images posted from the event [1] it seems to have two discrete power steering motors (we know from previous vehicles that these have two motor driver channels internally for failover), so there's probably a decent amount of redundancy here. There seems to also be some kind of a sensor that's only populated on one side, though I can't tell what it does from the picture (position sensor?)
Given that the steering is variable gain now, seems like the vehicle speed data would also be important, as in, the communication bus is now quite important for the function of the steering module.
With the Ethernet architecture they're using now, it's likely that it's not as problematic as with CAN bus (where water intrusion can take down the whole bus) but it would be interesting to see what the design choices there were.
> ... but I suppose one major difference is that at 48V, transformer-based DC-DC conversion is usually a better choice for digital electronics compared with a simple buck, which historically seems to be a significant jump in cost and faff to design.
There's no such thing as 'simple' transformer-based DC-DC conversion. If you want to use just a transformer, you're looking at AC. If you then want to convert it to DC after, you're going to need a rectifier plus a buck converter. The CyberTruck is 48VDC meaning if you want to do any kind of voltage conversion you're going to use a switching architecture of some sort.
> ... Perhaps PCB planar transformers will help here, but this may be one reason we don't see 50V EPR USB C devices yet (disappointed that the Cybertruck didn't decide to be the first 240W USB-C device, still stuck at 65W)
EPR is 48V.
Switching regulators are a pretty well known quantity now - and super efficient. I don't think there's much faff.
I'm hoping the 800V architecture at least leads to Tesla supercharger stations my Ioniq 5 can actually use after NACS takes over.
The current 400V architecture would charge even slower than the raw math would imply, because it requires the car to handle the voltage difference internally. Going through that path bottlenecks the charge rate at something Chevy-Boltish like 50kW that's simply not very viable for road trips.
There is something quite shocking (pardon the pun) to older car enthusiasts about just how fast off the line dual-motor EVs are.
The super coupes of one’s youth are utterly obliterated on the dragstrip, not by EV coupes, but by family SUVs and pickup trucks.
That said, just because they can go fast in a straight line doesn’t make them in any way equivalent to a 911. Give me a mountain pass or a racetrack, (and no kids or stuff to carry) and I’ll take the 911 every single time.
I don't know what's going on with that video. If we take Tesla's numbers at face value, which I definitely don't given their history, the 911 Turbo S is dramatically faster on the straights. Is Tesla claiming that the Cybertruck gets faster with a 911 in tow? If so, why isn't there an option for a 911 trailer?
I am a car enthusiast (although not one who could afford either a 911 nor a Cybertruck) but respectfully, who cares about quarter mile times? Most car people I know want a car with some poke, but care much more about how it handles twisties (and how much fun it is doing so). And I'd bet my bottom dollar the 911 would beat the refrigerator-looking truck all day long.
The base 911 is not intended to be fast in a straight line. It's actually about as fast as a Model 3 Dual Motor Long range. Base 911 is about experience, feel, and handling.
I say this because the mid-range 911 Turbo S would blow the doors off an unladen Cybertruck Tri-motor with it's 2.2s 0-60.
For the longest time, a section of the car enthusiast community has said that 'slow car fast is better than fast car fast'. Now a days, it is taken to mean that a light car that is fast enough is always more fun than a heavier car, no matter how fast.
The Tesla Cybertruck might be the best example of this phenomenon. At 7000 lbs and a high ground clearance, there is no amount of power that can make this car feel nimble.
Elon said a long time ago they wanted their vehicles to be a smackdown for Internal Combustion Engines, and I think they're getting there. This is the kind of marketing that make regular people go "Wait, what? How is that possible?".
More than about 10 years ago that was simply unheard of, and I'm certain people would have said it was impossible.
Useful or not, it's a very impressive thing to do. 99% of automakers would be happy if they could build a sports scar faster than a 911, let alone a pickup with 11,000lbs towing capacity.
The cheapest F150 Lightning (available today not in 2025) is $50k (vs $60k for Cybertruck), same 250 mile range but AWD standard, and is a regular pickup truck compatible with standard accessories and parts for doing actual pickup truck work.
Of course, most of the buyers of either the Cybertruck or the F150 Lightning probably aren't getting much dirt under their fingernails. Everyone I know doing construction/trade work tends to drive much smaller pickups.
We need a lot more Chevy Bolts and electric buses, and a smaller electric pickup truck with 2 doors, but instead this is what we will get due to the cultural moment we are at, and because of who has the money to spend on new vehicles today.
One of the issues it'll face in Europe is weight. One source I found for the "cyberbeast" model claims a 6843-pound curb weight. That's 3.1 metric tons. While there are discussions for special allowances for electric cars, the current limit of what you're allowed to drive with a normal driving license in the EU is 3.5 tons of gross vehicle weight rating.
In other words, in order to allow most people to drive the Cyberbeast, it would have to be rated so that (regardless of your license) you can't add more than 400 kg to it (this includes driver and passengers!). Hope the six people it's supposed to fit are light and have absolutely zero luggage.
I watched the whole launch event, my takeaway is that the Cybertruck is is going to really take off. I say this as someone who really disliked the initial aesthetic. Here are 3 facts:
1. It outpulls an F350 Diesel (and an F150 lightning and Rivian R1T)
2. It outurns any vehicle due to rear-wheel steering
3. It is faster than ANY truck AND most sports cars (it beat a Porsche 911 while pulling a 911 on a trailer)
4. It is bulletproof. They showed footage of two different gun types shooting the car. I imagine you are going to have certain celbreties get one of these simply to "flex" as the cool kids say these days. Some people will also get it because they are in cities where drive by shootings DO happen frequently and you can at least duck inside your Cybertruck.
Now, believe it or not, but there are people who do work with trucks that really need to pull a lot of weight, and being able to pull a little more than the F350 is going to result in less trips, so functionally some people will get it just for that reason. Also, moving a truck on certain job sites is a PITA sometimes, and the all wheel turning is going to be like magic in some situations.
I would like to know the range when towing 11,000 lbs. In the full size market, I can only think of the Nissan Titan as having less than 12,000 lb tow rating. A base Ford F150 has a 14,000 rating. When you move up to diesels, you can easily tow 20,000+ lbs and even at 10,000 lbs you take very little hit on range if your load is somewhat aerodynamic. Pulling a full-size Airstream you can still get 20+mpg even in a small diesel like in the Chevy Colorado.
Other folks mentioned the frame or brakes as the reason for the low tow rating.
I imagine the cybertruck has a strong frame, Tesla has never gone cheap when it came to that sort of thing, and I'm sure the braking is fine for small loads. Most big loads require the trailer to have its own braking anyway, so that's almost a moot point, even in the biggest truck, I'm not pulling over 10,000 lbs without a proper brake controller. I'm guessing they set the rating at 11,000 lbs because anything over that and you probably end up with a very expensive 30 mile battery range. I would initially compare the cybertruck to something like a Tacoma which has more like a 7,000 lb towing capacity, but then you look at the weight of a cybertruck at 6800 lbs, the damn thing is nearly 2000 lbs heavier than a base F150. The curb weight of the biggest F150 you can get is only 5800 lbs, still 1,000 lbs lighter than the cybertruck.
I like how it looks and I find it weird people seem to believe that their opinion is absolute truth and that anybody who doesn't hate it is wrong.
What I found the most surprising is that implies people don't actually believe cars on the road right now are ugly. Do people really look at SUVs and think "wow, is that thing pretty?"
Stainless steel exterior with sharp edges. Not looking forwarding to seeing pedestrians get gored when these things run into them. Not holding my breath on good crash compatibility with cars, either.
If you care about humans, you won't get one of these.
Interesting that the marketing image on that page is clearly meant to suggest driving around on Mars. I think it is clear from the design and marketing that this truck is meant as a fashion statement not a work vehicle. It will be interesting to see if it catches on. I like some of the ideas used in the vehicle's construction, though I do not like how dangerous it appears to be for pedestrians.
If I made a prediction, it would be that lessons learned from the cybertruck will influence a new generation of vehicle designs. It seems to be a design that takes a lot of risks and tries new things, and I would expect some of that to stick. Tesla certainly has experience making vehicles and a desire to simplify and innovate, so I would expect at least something of this design to inspire new vehicle designs.
A lot of people are saying its ugly. I feel that way too though I am unsure if it will grow on me. But as much as people say that, I think it will catch on anyway. It's a very flashy fashion statement and I think that will appeal to people with money and those aspiring to look like they have more money than they do.
Funny that the cheaper model's 0-60 time is listed as "4.1 SEC. 0-60 MPH", but the more expensive model is listed as "2.6 SEC. 0-60 MPH With rollout subtracted."
The whole rollout for 0-60 thing is a big fuss in the car magazine subculture - instead of counting zero to 60 from a standstill, they now count zero to 60 in a drag race style, where you have to trip the starting light by going forward a foot or two.
What that most likely means is that the fastest model doesn't have enough grip to keep the tires from spinning off the line, so they are basically spinning the tires for a fraction of a second (or longer) and then once they start to move forward, they start counting the 0-60 time. I imagine if you did the same for the cheaper model, it's 0-60 time would look better as well.
Elon did his usual "escape forward" trick but in the end this iteration does not deliver what was promised.
I reserved a $40k truck in 2019 that was supposed to be much easier to manufacture than regular cars - hence the relatively good price. No expensive paint shop, much easier line to make body panels of cold rolled steel bent into shape. Exaskeleton from a single. Industrial design, no side mirrors, no wipers. 6 passengers.
We should ask ourselvelves are the original promises still possible under a different package? And please make it road legal for Europeans with a regular driving licence.
I see from the photos it will have side mirrors now, so no side cameras after all. Still haven't heard anything about crash testing, which I'm curious about since thick stainless steel isn't what one would usually associate with crumple zones. To be sure, I wouldn't want to be hit by one if I were a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
> *Prices assume IRA Federal Tax Credits up to $7,500 for Rear-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive and est. gas savings of $3,600 over 3 years.See Details
Now, that’s amusing. So they exhibit not the real price of the car? But a hypothetical “price after savings” assuming the tax credits will still exist at the time, and that the buyer is going to stop using their gas car and use the cybertruck the exact same miles?
What have we come to?
Marketing engineering has gone bonkers! Don’t the US have any regulations that state that car price should be well “what it costs any customer to buy in cash at the time of purchase”?
A lot of the specs have changed since their initial reveal of the Cybertruck, but it still looks as ugly as they promised it would. So, at least in that respect, Tesla has lived up to their promises, and it's only right to salute them for that.
It is extremely misleading to include gas savings as a reduction in purchase price. If anything that should be used as a comparison of overall operating costs and cost more than the purchase price but not as much more as the gas competitor.
So the $40K CyberTruck is actually $61,000 and works on the assumption of tax credits being available at the end of 2025, 2 years from now... oh, and we've gone back to the bullshit of "subtracting gas costs from the "probable price"."
Another Elon lie. Four, nearly five years after initial claims - meant to be available in 2021, and 52% more expensive.
The brake lights might be tied with the Mini for the worst/least intuitive brake lights in history (the Mini has the left light with the left half of the Union Jack, i.e. looks like a right arrow, and the right light with the right half, looking like a left arrow, while the Cyber Truck actually turns OFF lights on the light bar to signify braking is happening, and turns them ON when no braking is happening).
[+] [-] andyjohnson0|2 years ago|reply
Opinion: this is the purest physical realisation of the Musk/Tesla world-view. A kind of Conway's law for cars. Deeply depressing, and the tech merely distracts from this a little. Why do we need this thing, again?
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/the-tesla-cybertruck-fi...
[+] [-] danielfoster|2 years ago|reply
Hopefully the car has a good pedestrian avoidance system. Otherwise, it seems to have a large blind spot for the driver. The nearly flat front also looks dangerous as well.
[+] [-] cashsterling|2 years ago|reply
Does look like the cybertruck might be even burlier than a F250... but the point is, we already share the road with "mini-tanks" [that are intrinsically more dangerous to other vehicles in collisions]. Adding one more niche model is not a significant risk increase.
[+] [-] poulpy123|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hermitcrab|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neop1x|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfinmaniv|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hamuko|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deagle50|2 years ago|reply
His statement is clearly hyperbole, if anything it shows that he gave up on protecting pedestrians long ago when it became clear most vehicle buyers and the regulatory bodies don't care.
[+] [-] iJohnDoe|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] liminalsunset|2 years ago|reply
Seems like if there were to be some kind of electrical failure, now with full steer-by-wire it could be quite a harrowing situation.
Based on the images posted from the event [1] it seems to have two discrete power steering motors (we know from previous vehicles that these have two motor driver channels internally for failover), so there's probably a decent amount of redundancy here. There seems to also be some kind of a sensor that's only populated on one side, though I can't tell what it does from the picture (position sensor?)
Given that the steering is variable gain now, seems like the vehicle speed data would also be important, as in, the communication bus is now quite important for the function of the steering module.
With the Ethernet architecture they're using now, it's likely that it's not as problematic as with CAN bus (where water intrusion can take down the whole bus) but it would be interesting to see what the design choices there were.
[1] https://twitter.com/DriveTeslaca/status/1730305183572177107/...
[+] [-] kllrnohj|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theluketaylor|2 years ago|reply
GM's clever solution is to present the battery pack as 2 400V packs. It does pose some very tricky pack balancing requirements though.
Other 800V cars charge quite poorly on 400V stations, usually with a hard cap at much lower than the potential max charge due to inverter limits.
[+] [-] arcticbull|2 years ago|reply
There's no such thing as 'simple' transformer-based DC-DC conversion. If you want to use just a transformer, you're looking at AC. If you then want to convert it to DC after, you're going to need a rectifier plus a buck converter. The CyberTruck is 48VDC meaning if you want to do any kind of voltage conversion you're going to use a switching architecture of some sort.
> ... Perhaps PCB planar transformers will help here, but this may be one reason we don't see 50V EPR USB C devices yet (disappointed that the Cybertruck didn't decide to be the first 240W USB-C device, still stuck at 65W)
EPR is 48V.
Switching regulators are a pretty well known quantity now - and super efficient. I don't think there's much faff.
[+] [-] demondemidi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheLoafOfBread|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geoelectric|2 years ago|reply
The current 400V architecture would charge even slower than the raw math would imply, because it requires the car to handle the voltage difference internally. Going through that path bottlenecks the charge rate at something Chevy-Boltish like 50kW that's simply not very viable for road trips.
[+] [-] whelp_24|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] upbeat_general|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bilsbie|2 years ago|reply
Drive by wire kind of scares me.
[+] [-] KennyBlanken|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajwilson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkclouds|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] everfrustrated|2 years ago|reply
That's incredible marketing.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1730331223992472029
[+] [-] rgmerk|2 years ago|reply
The super coupes of one’s youth are utterly obliterated on the dragstrip, not by EV coupes, but by family SUVs and pickup trucks.
That said, just because they can go fast in a straight line doesn’t make them in any way equivalent to a 911. Give me a mountain pass or a racetrack, (and no kids or stuff to carry) and I’ll take the 911 every single time.
[+] [-] adgrnhioaedntio|2 years ago|reply
https://www.caranddriver.com/porsche/911-turbo-turbo-s
I don't know what's going on with that video. If we take Tesla's numbers at face value, which I definitely don't given their history, the 911 Turbo S is dramatically faster on the straights. Is Tesla claiming that the Cybertruck gets faster with a 911 in tow? If so, why isn't there an option for a 911 trailer?
Methinks Tesla is up to their old tricks!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-autopilot-staged-engineer...
[+] [-] mvdtnz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agloe_dreams|2 years ago|reply
The base 911 is not intended to be fast in a straight line. It's actually about as fast as a Model 3 Dual Motor Long range. Base 911 is about experience, feel, and handling.
I say this because the mid-range 911 Turbo S would blow the doors off an unladen Cybertruck Tri-motor with it's 2.2s 0-60.
[+] [-] screye|2 years ago|reply
The Tesla Cybertruck might be the best example of this phenomenon. At 7000 lbs and a high ground clearance, there is no amount of power that can make this car feel nimble.
[+] [-] grecy|2 years ago|reply
More than about 10 years ago that was simply unheard of, and I'm certain people would have said it was impossible.
Useful or not, it's a very impressive thing to do. 99% of automakers would be happy if they could build a sports scar faster than a 911, let alone a pickup with 11,000lbs towing capacity.
[+] [-] kube-system|2 years ago|reply
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/08/32/5f/08325fd8b2a6e882b2a6e9ff8...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j-qy1s1RIM
[+] [-] LightBug1|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whicks|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danans|2 years ago|reply
Of course, most of the buyers of either the Cybertruck or the F150 Lightning probably aren't getting much dirt under their fingernails. Everyone I know doing construction/trade work tends to drive much smaller pickups.
We need a lot more Chevy Bolts and electric buses, and a smaller electric pickup truck with 2 doors, but instead this is what we will get due to the cultural moment we are at, and because of who has the money to spend on new vehicles today.
[+] [-] RockRobotRock|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tgsovlerkhgsel|2 years ago|reply
In other words, in order to allow most people to drive the Cyberbeast, it would have to be rated so that (regardless of your license) you can't add more than 400 kg to it (this includes driver and passengers!). Hope the six people it's supposed to fit are light and have absolutely zero luggage.
That would obviously make it entirely pointless.
[+] [-] ElijahLynn|2 years ago|reply
1. It outpulls an F350 Diesel (and an F150 lightning and Rivian R1T)
2. It outurns any vehicle due to rear-wheel steering
3. It is faster than ANY truck AND most sports cars (it beat a Porsche 911 while pulling a 911 on a trailer)
4. It is bulletproof. They showed footage of two different gun types shooting the car. I imagine you are going to have certain celbreties get one of these simply to "flex" as the cool kids say these days. Some people will also get it because they are in cities where drive by shootings DO happen frequently and you can at least duck inside your Cybertruck.
Now, believe it or not, but there are people who do work with trucks that really need to pull a lot of weight, and being able to pull a little more than the F350 is going to result in less trips, so functionally some people will get it just for that reason. Also, moving a truck on certain job sites is a PITA sometimes, and the all wheel turning is going to be like magic in some situations.
I predict this will change the entire industry.
[+] [-] nosequel|2 years ago|reply
Other folks mentioned the frame or brakes as the reason for the low tow rating. I imagine the cybertruck has a strong frame, Tesla has never gone cheap when it came to that sort of thing, and I'm sure the braking is fine for small loads. Most big loads require the trailer to have its own braking anyway, so that's almost a moot point, even in the biggest truck, I'm not pulling over 10,000 lbs without a proper brake controller. I'm guessing they set the rating at 11,000 lbs because anything over that and you probably end up with a very expensive 30 mile battery range. I would initially compare the cybertruck to something like a Tacoma which has more like a 7,000 lb towing capacity, but then you look at the weight of a cybertruck at 6800 lbs, the damn thing is nearly 2000 lbs heavier than a base F150. The curb weight of the biggest F150 you can get is only 5800 lbs, still 1,000 lbs lighter than the cybertruck.
[+] [-] maximus-decimus|2 years ago|reply
What I found the most surprising is that implies people don't actually believe cars on the road right now are ugly. Do people really look at SUVs and think "wow, is that thing pretty?"
[+] [-] mcnnowak|2 years ago|reply
Seems shady
[+] [-] dymk|2 years ago|reply
If you care about humans, you won't get one of these.
[+] [-] TaylorAlexander|2 years ago|reply
If I made a prediction, it would be that lessons learned from the cybertruck will influence a new generation of vehicle designs. It seems to be a design that takes a lot of risks and tries new things, and I would expect some of that to stick. Tesla certainly has experience making vehicles and a desire to simplify and innovate, so I would expect at least something of this design to inspire new vehicle designs.
A lot of people are saying its ugly. I feel that way too though I am unsure if it will grow on me. But as much as people say that, I think it will catch on anyway. It's a very flashy fashion statement and I think that will appeal to people with money and those aspiring to look like they have more money than they do.
[+] [-] jasongill|2 years ago|reply
The whole rollout for 0-60 thing is a big fuss in the car magazine subculture - instead of counting zero to 60 from a standstill, they now count zero to 60 in a drag race style, where you have to trip the starting light by going forward a foot or two.
What that most likely means is that the fastest model doesn't have enough grip to keep the tires from spinning off the line, so they are basically spinning the tires for a fraction of a second (or longer) and then once they start to move forward, they start counting the 0-60 time. I imagine if you did the same for the cheaper model, it's 0-60 time would look better as well.
[+] [-] paulus_magnus2|2 years ago|reply
I reserved a $40k truck in 2019 that was supposed to be much easier to manufacture than regular cars - hence the relatively good price. No expensive paint shop, much easier line to make body panels of cold rolled steel bent into shape. Exaskeleton from a single. Industrial design, no side mirrors, no wipers. 6 passengers.
We should ask ourselvelves are the original promises still possible under a different package? And please make it road legal for Europeans with a regular driving licence.
[+] [-] ttfkam|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reacharavindh|2 years ago|reply
Now, that’s amusing. So they exhibit not the real price of the car? But a hypothetical “price after savings” assuming the tax credits will still exist at the time, and that the buyer is going to stop using their gas car and use the cybertruck the exact same miles?
What have we come to? Marketing engineering has gone bonkers! Don’t the US have any regulations that state that car price should be well “what it costs any customer to buy in cash at the time of purchase”?
[+] [-] karaterobot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chung8123|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FireBeyond|2 years ago|reply
Another Elon lie. Four, nearly five years after initial claims - meant to be available in 2021, and 52% more expensive.
"Range: 250 - 500 miles". Another lie. Try 250 - 340. 33% less.
No solar roof.
The brake lights might be tied with the Mini for the worst/least intuitive brake lights in history (the Mini has the left light with the left half of the Union Jack, i.e. looks like a right arrow, and the right light with the right half, looking like a left arrow, while the Cyber Truck actually turns OFF lights on the light bar to signify braking is happening, and turns them ON when no braking is happening).
[+] [-] wnevets|2 years ago|reply