Not to mention it’s an entirely aluminum frame that has been shown to shatter instead of bend when overstressed, which is the opposite of what you want when you’re towing a trailer down the road at 65mph
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
170 points (90.9% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6356 readers
513 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
At least you'll never have to deal with frame realignment after a crash
You'll also break the frame if you hop on the hitch. It has a vertical load rating of 160 pounds and the frame is aluminum. No bending, just breaking. It's poorly conceived, executed, and implemented from top to bottom.
It has a vertical load rating of 160 pounds
Did literally nobody ever use the tow hitch to jump into the bed or something during development? How does this even happen?
Elon.
There's no way that barrel chested mfer is 160 pounds
load more comments
(1 replies)
This seems like guaranteed failure if it goes over nearly any rough road or rapid inckune/decline with a load trailer.
Of course the odds that anyone attaches a trailer is pretty low.
My Volvo has a hitch weight rating of 500 lbs
Yeah. Almost every car has a higher vertical weight limit.
This seems like a guarantee of failure for ANY actual use of the hitch. How is that even legal?
It can PULL more. It just can't handle much for vertical load. This is true of all Teslas. They are all aluminum frames. This is specifically for things like a cargo or bike rack. The leverage becomes greater every mm away from the hitch the weight is. There's some question of what a stress test would show. But the problem is there's no standard distance for those type of racks from the hitch.
Imagine a 10 foot steel bar in the hitch, and you hopped up and down on the end of it. If you weigh 200 pounds, you're applying roughly 2,000 pounds of effective vertical weight on the hitch. If you do it again only two feet from the hitch, it's 400 pounds effective vertical weight. What is the actual upper limit of effective vertical weight for a tesla hitch? Likely much more than 160 pounds. But that's what is put in the manual because they don't want to warranty the hitch because of the composition of the frame.
The real issue is that the hitch is attached to the frame, and the frame is aluminum. So it's not the case where you might bend the frame and could then have it bent back to good working order. If you put too much weight on a Tesla hitch, the frame itself will simply fracture.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I don't think this is all that unpopular of an opinion. It was one of the biggest complaints I saw when the design was first shown. There's actually a number of trucks I've seen out there that aren't trucks in my opinion, as they can't just backup and get loaded with whatever to haul off. I use my SUV more as a truck by just dropping the seats than some of these designer minibed raised chassis monstrosities could.
The term "vestigial bed" is the most accurate thing I've seen. Tf is the point of a 4 foot bed on a pickup?
I used to have a Ford Explorer Sport Trac, that had a 4.5' bed and it was a great size for me about 90% of the time. Now I have a monstrous 6.5' bed, and it's too big 90% of the time. (The used truck market is extraordinarily bad and I took what I could get.)
Don't get me wrong, there are still thousands of reasons to find the Cybertruck horrid, but the bed size, I personally would say, isn't one of them.
I have a short bed Tacoma (5’1” I think) and for almost everything I need it to do it does it. But if I want to sleep in the bed I have to drop the tailgate or sleep catawampus.
catawampus
I was going to confirm that yes, 5'1" is a typical shortbox. But I first have to say wow....I haven't heard that word in a very long time. I love it.
In fact, it can't even tow, because the hitch can just rip off. It's a useless pile of scrap metal.
This is absolutely a design decision. They won't tow, they won't go off the asphalt, they will mostly climb sidewalks and the only heavy loads they will ever carry will be the ones in their owners' bellies after family dinner at Olive Garden.
They are oversized crossovers with open trunk and that's plenty more than their owners need.
Reminds me of an old Miller Hugh Life commercial I loved. Showed an old guy watering his lawn by hand with nothing but a hose while looking at his neighbor’s new SUV (when they were getting popular). The voiceover says: “The only ‘off-road action’ this $60,000 monstrosity will ever see is if its owner accidentally backs over a flowerbed. A real man knows a station wagon when he sees one!”
I.......I'm not sure this is unpopular, so much as it is nit-picky. It would be like saying your favorite nut can't be honey roasted peanuts simply because the peanut isn't a nut at all. It's a legume. Doesn't mean you wouldn't be arrested for attempted murder if you force fed someone peanuts who had a known nut allergy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The cyber truck is a Ute.
Wait? Is the cybertruck a shitty electric camino?
Edit: deleted second electric
This is insulting to the El Camino
EV Camino
Lego
In a previous post, somebody called it a name that will forever live in my head:
WankPanzer.
Just to add.... if the Cybertruck, Ridgeline, etc... are trucks, then so is the El Camino...technically. And that is certainly not true.
The El Camino is a coupe utility vehicle, which is like a truck in the same way a three door hatchback is like a atation wagon. Kind of an midpoint between two other more distinct classes of vehicles.
Unibody trucks are still trucks if they can do general truck stuff like haul cargo in a bed and are generally shaped like a truck. They are definilty lighter duty though, which is fine and I wish coupe utility would make a comeback.
The cybertruck is just terrible at being a truck.
I would absolutely argue (and that's kind of my point) that the Cybertruck...and ESPECIALLY the Santa Cruz is closer to a coupe utility vehicle rather than a truck.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We should start to distinguish the two different styles of trucks by bringing back the term "pickup".
These smalls trucks can be "pickups" and the truck trucks can be trucks.
After reading your comment I realized I didn't really know the difference between a 'pickup' and a 'truck'. I found this pretty informative:
While I am onboard with this, it is funny that the article keeps changing terminology and uses ‘pickups’ and ‘puckup trucks’ interchangeably.
Back in my home country, we exclusively called them pickups. “Truck” was used for anything from box trucks to 18-wheelers. But the passenger vehicles with beds were called pickups, regardless if it was a Maverick or an F150. Took a while for me to adapt to calling them trucks in the US.
Yes please.
I think of them like planets.
The Ford Maverick looks like the larger trucks in style but is unibody, so it is Pluto. Looks like a planet, considered by many to be one, but technically a "dwarf planet"
The Santa Cruz is Ceres. Round, definitely planet like, but harder to call a planet.
The Cybertruck is Arrokoth. Few would mistake it for a planet. Weird looking, misproportioned, and way out there...
Car classification seems to change all the time. As a non-car person I can't keep up.
For me this is a truck:
But all the other classifications also change all the time. In 20 years a Cybertruck lookalike is probably a limousine or a compact car.
That's a European lorry, American trucks don't have a flat nose.
(I am somewhat kidding)
That's clearly a Japanese truck.
I never understood how the "X" was an SUV.
the x is for crossover, i think
Whistlin Diesel broke his truck waaaayy sooner than expected because of the uni-body.
Cybertruck not actually a truck. Musk directs Tesla to rename flagship vehicle "Cyber-not-a-truck." News at 9:00.
Tesla Cyber-el-camino
Nah you forgot his fascination with the female chromosome. It'll be the CyberX.
Yeah that’s unpopular - I shared that view in the early days of unibody construction but manufacturers can do a lot more with that now. Why not judge whether it’s a truck by whether it can do truck things?
We’re way past the point where trucks are used for stereotypical truck things and they’re used for a much wider range of uses. Most don’t need to be so heavy duty to fulfill their use case.
Unless you’re also going to claim we don’t need 80% of the trucks we have, you’re just being pretentious about the need for heavy duty vehicles and what manufacturers are able to design
Unless you’re also going to claim we don’t need 80% of the trucks we have
I would never presume to claim any such thing. I drive a 2021 Canyon quarter-tonne precisely because I think there is a use case for lighter duty trucks for people like me who aren't doing much more than hauling home-reno trash to the dump and moving some furniture for friends.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›