Owners of the affected trucks will require replacement hardware.
An actual recall that requires a hardware fix / replacement this time, and not a software update.
Am I reading the PDF right in that 1% or 2,431 trucks are affected, meaning they sold ~240k trucks?
Edit: official numbers are more around 30-40k worldwide as far as I can find. Idk how to read it, perhaps they mean 2,431 is the maximum but the expectation is 1%?
I can’t decide if that’s higher or lower than I expected.
It’s definitely higher than I was expecting, but nowhere near what Musk would want you to believe
Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge each sold over 700k half-ton pickup trucks last year, while Toyota sold only 130k Tundras. I suppose it’s possible that there are a quarter million suckers out there.
I have edited my comment with information I found and it seems Tesla is selling nowhere near that amount (30-40k)
Those are all more affordable, reliable, and established brands though.
At this point, looking at this vehicle with your naked eyes is bound to cause damage.
It harms my soul looking at this vehicle.
Hard to understand the calculus of people who would still be willing to buy a Tesla at this point. They’re literal death traps with shoddy manufacturing
I saw one the other day painted neon yellow. Believe it or not, it actually seemed like an improvement.
saw two of em in person this week. they’re even uglier in person
It’s amazing, they look awful in videos and pictures but then you see one in person and it’s just stunning to look at, not in a good way. They’re the stupidest looking things.
My kids love them for some reason, I think they’re an eyesore. To each their own, but even if I liked how they look, there’s no way I’m paying that much for one.
I wonder what the reward is if you get 10 recalls on your punchcard?
You get the thing that represents all cyber truck owners: a lollipop, or as it’s also known—a “sucker.”
I keep forgetting how nasty they look… I’m glad I don’t have to see these on European roads. Not yet, at least.
It’s a trip seeing them around. Somehow they look even worse in person.
When I first saw one pass by me in reality, my first reaction was “jesus”. And the colors I’ve seen on display (a Tesla store is nearby), wtf? Not that a good color would help a lot, it still looks very wrong.
I see way too many around here and people have taken to putting wraps on it. I love seen one that tries to make it look like the Warthog from Halo.
Something about pigs and lipstick…
I don’t really care what they look like. If any truck actually could meet the promises these made, I’d buy the shit out of them:
-All electric
-Sophisticated sensor suite to improve operational safety
-Working performance comparable to F150
-low maintenance
-Can be used as home power backup
-not a Deathtrap
-not a Killing machine
It hits the electric points, but that’s it. It’s a bad truck. It doesn’t fulfill any of the “smart” promises. Death trap killing machines in constant recall that can’t handle rain… Let alone do work.
The aesthetic doesn’t even make my list of complaints. It’s like the whole industry has been trying to make trucks as shitty as possible for like 30 years. Give me a '94 ranger electric conversion kit and it’s game fucking over cyber truck.
So what about the F150 Lightning doesn’t meet that? It actually offers whole house backup which is something that caught my attention
Not in love with the “big boy” from factor but when I believe they’re going to enter “long term support” territory I absolutely would be interested.
I’m definitely a fan of the Lightning, but it’s a huge truck, similar to a Raptor in length. It wouldn’t fit in my driveway. They need an EV Mavick or Ranger. (I’ve heard rumors of a Ranger PHEV, which could be a game changer for EV towing)
Yeah he just mentioned “F150 performance” and it’s literally an F150. That’s what prompted my question.
It’ll be great to see them start coming out with smaller truck sized EVs.
How can it be a death trap when it is only found on flat beds?
I doubt they’ll ever come to Europe. They don’t meet even the most basic crash safety standards. These things are designed to annihilate pedestrians, not to try to reduce harm.
They don’t meet even the most basic crash safety standards.
Well that’s just incorrect.
We actually have no idea what crash safety standards they meet because Tesla hasn’t submitted them for any testing at all, and as we all know from Elon’s new BFF, if you don’t test for it, you won’t have to worry about it.
They did publish a video of a crash test, but I think Tesla did it themselves and didn’t publish any data, just a “comparison video” with an F150 Lightning.
It didn’t look great… A lot of people were pointing out how tiny the crumple zone is, and the stop seemed more violent than most vehicles.
They look like they have been on the streets for 10 years. Turns out stainless steel isn’t all that stainless.
I’m from Europe and I already met one in my hometown. The other day, it even damaged scaffolding on the Powder Gate in Prague, while it was, hilariously, riding on the bed of a tow truck.
Edit: The individual approval itself is already highly controversial: https://www.wired.com/story/a-rubberized-cybertruck-is-ploughing-through-european-pedestrian-safety-rules/
6th recall this year so far
Cybertruck circa 2026.
That’s what peak efficiency looks like haters.
I ran into a former coworker (we still work at the same place, just different groups now) at a work thing recently and he told me I had to see his new car.
It was this. I told him it was ugly. He tried to show me all the bells and whistles. I told him I was glad he liked it, but it was still ugly.
He said yeah…that’s what my wife says too. She hates it.
lol
It looks like they purposedly made it that way.
He was bragging about the stainless steel being made to withstand bullets and we do live in a large city in the US in a state with basically no gun control, so I told him I could potentially see that coming in useful during rush hour on the freeways.
He had a story for why it was shaped the way it was, the windows are angled at the most aerodynamically possible angle because that’s important for a car that will probably spend 50% of its life stuck at a red light.
He’s obviously drank the kool aid. When I got back to the office I told my current coworkers, and a couple of interns said that car is super dangerous because it basically has no crumple zones. Then they pulled up some YT videos showing tests proving it.
The best part? We’re all engineers. The interns knew about the crumple zone thing. The senior Elon fanboy was just impressed with the window angle and bulletproof doors. I didn’t ask who he voted for, but I can guess.
But… it does have crumple zones.
The entire front and rear castings are designed to shatter in a high energy collision and crumple.
The size of a crumple zone isn’t as important as how it absorbs the energy and dispenses it.
You could have a 20foot crumple zone that’s empty and it’s be useless.
You can see it crumpled here. They’ve also posted a different video on the official X account of a crash test but I won’t post that to avoid linking them. here.
Since you got something so utterly basic wrong and posted it as true, I can only assume the entire post is fabricated.
Edit: took a screen shot instead of video. It crumples all the way past the front wheels
You seem nice. Anyway, a crumple zone is assumed to be designed in such a way that it protects the occupants of the vehicle.
No one said it didn’t “crumple” on impact. The problem is that it doesn’t sufficiently crumple in such a way that it dissipates the energy effectively.
In this case, the vehicle’s occupants are still traveling at a decent rate of speed and the material of the vehicle is thick enough so they could potentially sustain head injuries. Other vehicles do not have a similar concern.
Hope your day gets better. Cheers.
You seem nice
It comes and goes.
Have you seen this crash yet where all 4 participants survived?
https://www.motor1.com/news/731526/tesla-cybertruck-crash-auction/
It’s trashed, but you can see it got wrecked up to the passenger compartment on the front, and the rear is missing all the way into the back wheels.
Neither of those distances is insignificant for a crumple area. That thing had to be flipping and they absorbed that energy.
I’ll reserve judgement until the NHTSA. NCAP, and IIHS weigh in. I know the NHTSA and IIHS have declined to test due to the cost of the vehicle/testing vs low market share of the Cybertruck. As far as I understand NCAP has no plans to test since the design by default breaks EU regulations before you even consider crash testing.
I trust Tesla’s internal testing about as much as I trust Boeing’s internal testing.
Makes sense about NCAP ya. It’ll get tested eventually we’ll just have to wait.
I remember there was a suspicion about the nature of these because Tesla have chosen not to be certified by third parties for safety and only posted these in-house crash videos instead, no other data has been shared. It rose some eyebrows because Elon could has dodged the regulations just out of spite and to cut corners in time, money needed for that, but at the same time we don’t know if their own tests are legit and how many of them have been done - all we see is these posts by his SMM team. This conversation about CT safety consists of only one party, Tesla, that has obvious economical interests, so you either trust them or not.
It’s not that Tesla didn’t choose to have it tested, the agencies haven’t wanted to test it yet.
They don’t test every vehicle and they don’t always test what they think will be low volume vehicles.
Teala could sponsor it, but it’s not like every manufacturer sponsors a vehicle that the testing agencies decide not to test.
For example, I don’t believe the model 3 highland has been tested again after all the changes, and if it has, not all the testing agencies yet.
lol
Good.
Very efficient recalls, already did 6 on the same model vehicle in one year
