> Similar to other critics (earlier this year, a CNN reviewer called the pickup a “disturbing level of individual arrogance in hard, unforgiving steel”)—Drury believes Cybertruck buyers are people “who think ‘I don’t care if I kill people when I drive this thing down the street,’” he says. “There aren’t many of those people out there, so there’s a relatively small market for the Cybertruck.”
The Josh Johnson on this one is gonna be good.
People buy them because they are politically charged, and you can be seen as a tribe member.
But I kinda think it's sad, because I think most tribes make fun of the cyber truck buyer, so they've bought a very expensive, very shoddy ticket into an in group, only to mark themselves as an outsider who bought their way in.
I wonder if you exclude "recalls" resolved by software updates, for all cars, where it would rank then?
For Tesla, the software recalls are nearly automatic (one click install, just like other update), such that few owners even know that their car ever had a recall.
- charge port needing replaced shortly after I bought: mobile service
- front and rear suspension forks replaced: 2 trips to service center (common according to them)
- rear light needed replacing (mobile service)
4 years old.
Still not as bad as our last car (diesel VW Sharan), but Teslas have plenty of defects that can’t be fixed OTA.
The CT OTOH had many "classical" physical recalls due to hardware issues.
Even ignoring software recalls, then, the Cybertruck has a significantly higher recall rate (per unit time) than anything I've owned, so the fact that it has had even more recalls that could be serviced OTA is really neither here nor there. The user-facing software systems in these modern luxury cars really do seem to cause a lot of issues.
I guess on a positive note they stopped posting that Tesla is almost bankrupt for the 1000th time because Elon.
Elon is Trump's next Omarosa...
Why have you put "recalls" in quotes? It gives the impression you think this makes it somehow lesser. The cybertruck, for example, was subject to a recall because the rearview camera wouldn't come up, but the mirrors are insufficient to back the vehicle up safely without the camera.
That's a safety issue, irrespective of whether or not the fix was in software.
Maybe because an over-the-air update is hard to seriously consider a "recall"?
Also, in the head of most people, I think, a recall is something where the car needs to be returned physically. But still, obviously, the issues can be as serious as physical issues. It’s just that we’re used to physical recalls.
(The etymology of a word can be quite different from its current meaning today.)
So no, the word recall is used because is the official terminology used for these issues regardless of the solution required to fix them.
The word does have its origin in a world where solutions were rarely software updates. That they are software issues make them no less serious though. I suspect that in some cases the software issues might indeed be far more dangerous than errors which mandate physical recalls.
Tesla is treating its product-launches like it's just some browser-game in the cloud, instead of treating it as what it is: The handover of a 6000 pound bullet into the hand of a customer who will fire it into a crowd in expectation to not hit anyone...
Which of these would you, a Tesla stakeholder, prefer the news to report:
- Tesla Cybertruck has recall
- Tesla Cybertruck receives software update that resolves issue that put public safety at risk
Doesn't really matter if it hw, sw or maybe even the owners manual that needs to be changed ASAP.
If you're opposed to it based on the assumption that it wouldn't take as long, I agree that might be true, but by that logic we should be categorizing _all_ recalls based on length (regardless of whether it's a software update or otherwise), since I'm not convinced that the average length of time until a problem is fixed will always be perfectly split with the software ones being super quick and the ones that would need to happen in person being super slow. What if the mechanics are already aware of how to fix the issue and can do it the same day, or if the software issue turns out to take a long time due to the developers needing a lot of time to fix the bug?
If you're opposed to it purely from the perspective of linguistics and "recall" sounds like "return to the manufacturer", I think I'd disagree due to the word "recall" not being super commonly used for that in other circumstances. If anything, the other usage of the word that springs to mind most readily to me is recalling someone or something "from service", which I think fits perfectly here.
They know they can fix problems cheaply. If they had to physically update vehicles they would have a lot more incentive to make updates unnecessary.
Think about how, even in software, knowing that a physical shipping of a product (CD / Blu-ray) can be updated from "day 1" has led to poor quality releases with last minute patches.
The cost of having to physically recall / resend CDs back in the day meant that what went out had to work. The cost of sloppy software has now been externalised.
But then how will you know what you HAVE to fix. /s
To be frank I find the whole Tesla cult to be mind blowing. Seems to be the realization of believing in something that seems so good to be true alwith a company who promises to do so many great things, delivers non road worthy vehicles and people still dedicate their time and money defending them.
Is it sunk cost fallocy? Or just people who just wish Tesla was what they promised they would be?
And which Lamborghini specifically?
In the old days, governments had departments which would inspect cars, verify they complied with legislation, and even examine build quality.
Quite easy, when everything was basically physical.
Now the ECU and modules are a black box, unknowable to such entities. Things can be caught (see VW scamming fuel/emissions tests), but it's by luck.
So solution? We pass laws that all code, every bit of it, all chip schematics too, all firmwares are open source.
Note I said open source, which in the old days just meant "readable". We're not talking GPL, all copyright would remain.
On top of that, all build scripts and methods to flash modules / etc would be provided to governement test environments.
Now we can test. Now, we can look for crappy code, hacky junk, fake emission cheats, bugs and more.
Don't like it? You don't sell cars. Tough.
The entire supply chain would be required to fall inline.
It's really not that hard.
In terms of security, that's what signing updates is for.
And (for example) you can already take hobby tools, such as forscan (for fords) amd flash updates to modules.
As long as it is signed.
All car companies comply with thousands of regulations, and it's fine. If you have a simple view of the world, I don't think inverting it and claiming the people you think are the baddies hold that inverted view is going to get anyone closer to understanding anything.
While I agree that the term "recall" is overloaded, the Cybertruck has had some pretty spicy safety related "recalls". Issues that, frankly, it should not have been allowed onto public roads with.
For me the cybertruck looks like something out of a low budget'70s Sci-Fi movie. Who knows in 10 years maybe it will start to appeal to me but for right now it doesn't.
Stop trying to tell people what they should think.
I believe many manufacturers also look at data from people like Munro & Associates who tear down cars, figure out what they're made from, and how they were made.
Here's some more sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=are+cybertrucks+actually+rus...
It wasn't fixed because it didn't need to be fixed, it just wasn't actually the truck itself rusting.
(sorry, I'm just cranky about Duh Media characterization in general. there's a wide set of experiences in this world, and its not nefarious to describe some of them!)
paint is a bit more than just corrosion protection at this point, otherwise mfgs would just slap on the thickest toughest machine-tool grade enamel and call it a day.
why don't they? because it looks terrible.
It's a very different and new design. How many of the 91% we're comparing to are completely new designs. What's the correct benchmark?
Let's rewrite the headline. "A radical new EV design from Tesla, the Cybertruck, is already ahead of 9% of all 2024 vehicles in quality as it just ramps up production".
I'll likely never own this - not my style. But I can appreciate doing things differently and being successful at that. Getting those gas guzzling truck owners to go electric would be nice too.
I don't think they said only the cyber truck should be illegal.
I honestly like the way it looks, but I am happy I never preordered it or anything. The reviews are shocking. Even the positive reviews tend to hyperfocus on situations that can be capably dealt with by a standard hatchback. You can take a honda jazz across more terrain.
Its a failure, one that was likely very familiar to HN members. I am sure that internally engineers made every single one of these issues very apparent to management and they shipped anyway.
This is true of most automobile design.
There are legitimate criticisms of Musk and Tesla. "I don't like how someone else's car looks" is not one of them.
Yes. Not offering utility in design is common in cars. Most people don’t buy a truck to haul. Most people don’t buy an off-roader to go off road. (Most people don’t buy a sports car to race.)
> Most people don’t buy a truck to haul.
But if they do need to haul or tow something, they can.
> Most people don’t buy an off-roader to go off road.
But if they do need to go off-road, they can.
> Most people don’t buy a sports car to race.
Sports cars can be enjoyed (relatively) legally on the street. Quick acceleration combined with very good handling and a sense of connection to the road is a feeling you can enjoy at 55mph. Many people won’t drive their sports cars to the limit, but they are still a more enjoyable driving experience than a regular car for people who care about that.
A cybertruck can’t really haul things, it can’t really tow things, and it can’t be that fun to drive. I hope it’s at least comfortable, but based on my experience with their other vehicles, I doubt it.
Cybertruck are the equivalent of a pair of thick nerdy glasses.
In what ways has it failed predictably? There are a number of things that could contribute to various failures/recalls that relate to utility provided by the (novel) design. For example the steer-by-wire system or the mid-voltage (48 V DC) electrical system.
The main example of "this is just dumb design for no reason" is the recall due to the pedal cover sliding up and jamming, but that was only 1 out of 6.
Congratulations, you solved 1 issue related to car dependency and proliferation of huge vehicles, namely tailpipe emissions. Now the other 99 remain.
The solution to gas guzzling trucks is "boring", it's good trains, it's protected bike lanes in urban environments, it's smaller and safer cars in less dense environments, etc. But these things don't make Mr Musk money :)
I'm all for better transit, but it doesn't change that the trucks/SUVs keep selling and getting more polluting, and will do so for decades as part of the fleet
Hell, I just found out those same commuter lines extend all the way north to Kenosha, Wisconsin, and east to South Bend, Indiana, so into neighboring states. I did know people who commuted to Chicago from Indiana everyday so that's not too surprising.
For example, it has steel panels but... an aluminium frame. That's an odd choice. If you're towing something heavy then up and down motion makes the frame prone to snapping.
Big trucks (eg F150, F250, F350) exist because of a quirk in regulation where so-called "work vehicles" were exempted from emissions standards. This part is a real shame because the US doesn't have vehicles lik the Toyota Hilux, which actually have an equivalent tray size and would be much more economical to run.
An electric truck may allow a smaller truck because it's not affected by emissions (obviously). Perhaps battery weight makes this impractical. It would be nice. I mean some people import Japanese K trucks now.
Competition-wise the Ford F150 Lightning looks like a much better proposition. It looks like a truck. It's built on a proven frame. Still, sales seem to be weak. For work vehicles in particular (and, yes, a lot of trucks aren't work vehicles; they're essentially ornamental) could be quite limited by EV charging issues vs the convenience of filling up a tank of gas.
Yes! That was the first and only truck (or any car) I've ever owned! It was just called the "Toyota Pickup" in the US but it's the same model that was named "Hilux" in many other countries.
I used it to drive ladder racks and paint around Denver while I was in the house painting business to pay my way through college. It had almost 200k miles on it when I gave it to my dad after I graduated and decided to move abroad. To the best of my knowledge, he's still driving it and when I last asked him about it several years ago, it had well over half a million miles on it.
At least for autos made in the 90s, Toyota's quality was unmatched. My dad is a former plane mechanic and has undoubtedly extended its life, but I had no idea what I was doing and that pickup seemed virtually impervious to normal wear and tear. It's a shame it was discontinued in the US.
but 90% of those 2024 vehicles are much cheaper, so you would expect a lower quality. Also remember the cybertruck was presented five years ago.
There's just a lot of easy things to point at with the Cybertruck because of what was promised vs what was delivered. This happens with model cars from other manufacturers too though what changes there is often more looks than promised functionality.
> The latest recall—the wedge wagon’s sixth this year—requires shop time, not an over-the-air (OTA) update.
For most automakers, a recall involves hundreds of thousands to millions and is almost never an OTA software update.
I cannot find any evidence that previous physical recalls this year only affected a few hundred units. Two are 2000+ units and the others seem to be however many had sold by the date of the recall (10k+ in both instances).
This article is a hack job. I didn't see any positive commentary. Wired is cooked.
Legacy industries view software projects as a 1-and-done deal. The "we'll fix it live" approach in tech is a short-coming of our discipline. We can ignore it when failure means a mild inconvenience. But, hard engineering isn't as forgiving.
Even if the fix is 'just' a software update, the bug can put lives at risk. [1]
Each industry and its regulators come with certain norms. Cars are expected to be delivered as 'complete' products. If Tesla can't abide by that expectation, then that's their problem. Don't drag the entire software industry into this.
A recall is a public dangerous defect notice. The dangerous product version can no longer be deployed, existing systems suffering from the dangerous defect are identified, and then the version with those dangerous defects is removed from the market with all due speed by either refunding, replacing, or remediating at the manufacturer’s expense. The defective version is thus no longer present, i.e “recalled”.
The term has a precise meaning as I laid out. Unfortunately, it has been so thoroughly intentionally poisoned by bad actors in recent years that the term should be retired. We should use the descriptive term: “Public Dangerous Defect Notice” to avoid such bad faith misrepresentation going forward.
I think that is where the two clusters of people that I see commenting here are converging / possibly arguing past each other.
One popular form of headline that comes to my mind from business new channels of which I remember no specific instance basically goes like this: “Car manufacturer recalls X many cars costing over them Y dollars because of some fault”. X is usually in the tens of thousands or more and Y is usually in the millions of dollars (now maybe tens of millions of dollars).
Nah, that's a sleigh of hand. Recall literally means recall. Whatever the actual technical definition, the common-man understanding has always been "manufacturer asking you to give your car back, because they screwed up badly enough to be legally forced to fix it". The focus is, and always has been, on the physically give your car back to manufacturer part.
The precise meaning you laid out? That's arguably a typical case of using ancillary aspects of a thing as a proxy, because they're much easier to precisely pin down than the thing you actually want. Think every other term explicitly defined in any contract - the definition tends to not be what's intended, but something that mostly overlaps with intent and is easier to spell out concisely.
The overall point being: regardless of what the technical meaning of "recall" is, if you put Tesla's OTA fixes together with everyone's repairs that require shipping the car itself to the manufacturer, and then treat them all as equal, that's just blatant, bald-faced lie, a clear indication of purposeful dishonesty.
> A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety standards. Most decisions to conduct a recall and remedy a safety defect are made voluntarily by manufacturers prior to any involvement by NHTSA.
> Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases repurchasing the vehicle.
So the person you're replying to seems to be correct, or is there another source that shares your claim that "the focus is, and always has been, on the physically give your car back to manufacturer part"?
Yes that's a much better term. In peoples minds "recall" means MY vehicle has to be transported somewhere to be fixed.
For the individual customer, a recall can be a massive frustrating hassle, which an OTA isn't. That doesn't change the severity of the issue, but a model that has 9 physical recalls to fix some brake issue, and 1 OTA update is going to be seen as a disaster, while a model that has 0 physical recalls and 10 OTA updates will be seen as a pleasure to own.
Recalls in consumers' minds are a frustration measurement more than a safety record. Most recalls are about very small/hypothetical risks, so the risk I want to avoid when I look at manufacturers recall history is the risk of having to fix my vehicle physically. Because that's a real/large risk, while the risk of it catching fire spontaneously could be catastrophic but is usually tiny.
Yes and the way software development tends to work is absolutely unacceptable in safety-critical systems in a 7000 lb vehicle.
There's been been a number of physical recalls for the Cybertruck, including:
- Accelerator pedal sticking[1]
- Trunk bed trim detaching[2]
- Front windshield wiper failures[3]
- This latest drive problem[4]
From what I could find via the NHTSA there's only been six this year for Cybertrucks, so it seems like the majority are physical problems.
Edit: Forgot HN's formatting for lists.
[1]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=24V276000
[2]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=24V457000
Of course it's bad. If this were a purely software discussion, would anybody be saying "It's OK they have a bazillion zero-days every year because they're quick to fix them when they learn about them"?
Also, remember that the flipside is also true: with aggressive OTA updates, they have the ability to create new issues that weren't there to begin with. I wouldn't trust somebody with that bad a QA track record to not introduce new issues.
Despite this, seems like at least the regular Teslas are among the safest vehicles on the road all things considered.
Nothing happened. Everyone I know who owns a Tesla loves it. So I’m going to file this under “internet hates guy; tries to make it sound like he makes bad things” which people do a lot with Musk stuff.
None of the Tesla cars are one I’ll buy (need 3 rows comfortably - might even buy the new VW electric van) but I’m getting the feeling from the online techies like I did at the AirPod release and the iPad release: my instinct is that this is great stuff; then my friends who buy it love it; then everyone online hates it; then it sells billions of dollars worth.
Small consolation for the pedestrian who gets run over. Massive cars and distracting screens are two of the main reasons traffic deaths are on the rise, and they're both two selling points people like about Teslas.
I think that is a lot of the bias with Tesla owners many of them have never owned a car in that price range before and they bought it because of the hype surrounding the Tesla. Prior to that they would have never thought of buying a car in that price range. Often times when you buy a car in that price range you're getting a better quality car because it's from a manufacturer who's been around longer.
They're hard to find now, I assume because of how embarrassed the authors were for posting them.
Hilarious.
the problem is that Twitter has been such an invaluable part of the daily doomscroll that i suspect even those who have 'left' it for BlueSky or Threads are still opening X a few times a day - keeping those MAU numbers up.
We had a “bomb cyclone” last week in the PNW that took out power for half a million homes, and my cybertruck was a lifesaver. Powered my house for multiple days, allowing my family to stay at home. Our fridge and freezer stayed powered and I even ran my clothes dryer one day just because I could. I can’t sing its praises enough after this experience.
It’s true that the smaller team has succeeded with uptime on the core service. It’s also true, however, that the platform is in serious decline, and that’s partly due to the product becoming more and more shitty over time. It turns out skeleton crews can’t make things that are nice to use. Have you tried the X mac app lately? It’s just horrible. Broken modals, empty loading screens, janky layout with desperate upsell message slapped everywhere.
Keeping the platform online with a smaller team was a win, sure. But don’t pretend there’s been no impact.
A vocal minority of leftists moving to Bluesky isn't a decline.
But since you mention it: yes, a vocal minority of leftists moving to a new platform is indeed a decline! Get your politics out of it and think about what it means for a business. Part of twitter’s value was that it was where news broke, people made statements, etc. It was cited on the news. There was no other platform like that (except perhaps Instagram, usually with pop culture figures). There is indeed a small group of people who, if you lose them, cause enormous damage to a platform like Twitter, because for many people using it they are using it because of the other people using it. Network effects cut both ways.
I agree people tend to overreact and overblow expected consequences, but I mean, twitter's valuation is down 80%[0] and they haven't released anything new in two years, after exhausting the backlog of already developed things.
It's not going great.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/09/30/elon-musk...
Despite the fact that these predictions ended up being completely wrong, there seems to have been very little reflection from the people who were making them.
I'm not a Twitter user, so I might miss the lack of some essential features, but it seems to me that the platform is mostly feature-complete. Just further bloating the software for the sake of it is not necessary a good strategy, yet it is one that a lot of startups follow, just because that VC R&D money has to go somewhere.
They are a 15k car at best with 20k worth of batteries masquerading as a nice car. They’re not. They’re a reasonably cost-effective EV, compared to the rest of the market, but they’re not even close to gas cars in the same price range when it comes to anything other than cost per mile.
Rightfully so? I mean you can't build up a personality cult and then separate the guy from the product.
But regardless of musk, you have to agree that the cybertruck has issues and underdelivered.
= (Date("Jan-20-2025")-Now()).convertToWholeDays;
Like its shape is weird and 'dangerous', but the F150, RAM truck etc etc are MORE dangerous shape wise, but because it has a 'conventional' shape and the change happened gradually, some how it's ok?
The strangest was the carrot test, they kept doing this test the Cyber truck frunk... but guess what, same happens if you put carrots across the opening of other EV truck with auto close... I saw a video of it same happening with an F150 EV...what even was the point of this whole hullabaloo
I am not American, I don't even have a car, I just hate that this nonsense is polluting my internet feeds.
It's a big car with a long truck, congrats, it's not the anti christ, shut up about it.
What do you mean by shape?
Generally, safety is proportional to the relative weight of your car in the collision.
The F150, generously, is 2/3 the weight. (median F150 vs. lowest cybertruck)
Generally, when people discuss car safety in the context of SUVs, they're discussing this weight.
Rest of the stuff seems irrelevant or strawmen I've never seen (truck is antichrist!?; you're in Europe)
Either do something about the terrible truck design... or shut up and tolerate the cyber truck like you tolerate the F150 EV or whatever.
Fluff like this just pollutes the EV news space without providing any new info.
It's not the front shape or slicing people. It's the weight. I have no idea why you think anyone is hand-wringing about slicing people. No one thinks slicing people with hard edges is the problem.
It makes sense if you're A) mad about All Duh People Lying About Slicing Car or B) Actually All Heavy Cars Are Bad. You are stuck on saying A but wanting to make sense, as in B, which is at least internally coherent and reality-based, if purist.
> It's not the front shape or slicing people. It's the weight. I have no idea why you think anyone is hand-wringing about slicing people. No one thinks slicing people with hard edges is the problem.
Please read the links, I'll share them here again.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-rubberized-cybertruck-is-ploug...
https://www.transportenvironment.org/uploads/files/2024-10-0...
> What do you mean by shape?
If publications want to talk about bad truck shapes in good faith, talk about ALL truck shapes! Singling out the truck made by Tesla when the trucks made by other American automakers is just as dangerous is obvious click bait, and just pollutes the EV news scape.
> The F150, generously, is 2/3 the weight. (median F150 vs. lowest cybertruck)
Also I was referring to the line in this article where they talk about how it doesn't meet EU regulations, which leads to another article[1] of their, which talks a LOT about cybertruck's bad front shape... (which I must mention for clarity, IS bad)... but make no mention of the even WORSE shapes by other competing American trucks.
Because the fact is... Tesla sells clicks. They reference a letter [2] by the NGO protesting about the (private) import of this particular turck... but said NGO's website makes no mention of OTHER dangerous american trucks privately imported to europe and parading about. The story is not the shape or pedestrian safety... it's click.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/a-rubberized-cybertruck-is-ploug...
[2]: https://www.transportenvironment.org/uploads/files/2024-10-0...
____
Btw, I am not in Europe. I live in a 3rd world country, not sure where I gave that insinuation.
TL:DR; ALL american trucks are terribly shaped and designed or whatever. ALL american trucks have multiple other issues and recalls... as is routine with the damn things.
Yet this particular stupid truck gets posted because it's click bait, NOT because there is some actual information to be gained. We should downvote such clickbait pollution on our feeds.
I care about EVs and climate change and emission reduction and all that.
What I don't care about is the Electric vehicle news feed being polluted with irrelevant nonsense when there are far more important news to be shared.
I don't care about the Cybertruck's oddities... because those oddities are common to other american EV trucks and therefore bring nothing new to the table.
I have yet to see a cybertruck in Europe but god knows i will be careful of them. No sane people could ever buy them.
I consider this as a feature for other drivers, it's like a big red sign pointing 'i put crayon up my nose'.
Saying that I’m not up to snuff with type approval is an understatement but I think for imports there‘a probably ways to play silly buggers with temp plates if you have the money. But if you’re the sort of persons who decides to import a cybertruck to the eu I don’t think that’s going to stop you.
Hell, I think you can drive for up to a year on non-eu plates before the car has to be locally registered as an import.
I am not trying to make a point here. Clearly some people care about that. I'm legitimately curious why.