you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 202 points 2 months ago (34 children)

Couldn't happen to an uglier, more stupid car.

It looks like something a 6 year old designed on a 1980s PC.

  • source
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 73 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I would usually give a lot of credit to someone trying something different, but I'd drive a 1971 Ford Pinto before I ever intentionally get within photographable proximity to a Cybertruck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    The danger of the Pinto was exaggerated. Do a web search for the You're Wrong About episode on the Pinto. The investigative reporting on the Pinto's safety flaw used a demonstration rigged to explode. Other subcompact cars had a similar dangling fuel tank, and the number of actual Pinto explosions in the field was actually rarer than those of its competitors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    It was all fueled by a law firm, who picked out Ford because they had the most cash at the time.

    Same thing with AUDI "sudden acceleration".

    then again with Toyota "sudden acceleration" , but Toyota had black boxes that proved the car's accelerators were being pressed. Since then, every car company tracks data to prevent lawsuits.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 55 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    When the cybertruck was first announced, I actually appreciated how different it looked, but its performance and association to Musk has entirely ruined any hope of me ever liking a low-poly vehicle ever again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I thought it would look unique in a geeky way. Instead it looks unique in a Nazi way. That's not my vibe. Killed my enthusiasm for owning something that I knew most people would hate. Also costing twice as much and being a piece of shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I know this sounds really pathetic to say out loud now that it's a confirmed flop, but I never liked the look.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    I didn't really care about the look. Then I saw one in the flesh in a car show. The thing just looked strange up close. It was cordoned off too unlike the hundreds of other cars there. I guess they didn't want people touching it because lots of greasy fingers and stainless steel body don't mix well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    When the cybertruck was first announced, I actually appreciated how different it looked

    Yeah, same here. I usually like weird looking forms for ordinary objects. The cybertruck counts.

    Even disregarding the emotional association to Musk, which is nigh impossible, the engineering of the car makes it suck to hell, because that's all Musk's decision he forced.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (9 children)

    That's quite exactly what they were going for actually. Lo-res graphic to represent hi-tech. Somewhat like military camo is now pixelated for no practical reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Just because you don't know why digital camouflage exists doesn't mean it has no practical purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Neither pixellation nor digitization contributes to the camouflaging effect. The pixellated style, however, simplifies design and eases printing on fabric, compared to traditional patterns. While digital patterns are becoming widespread, critics maintain that the pixellated look is a question of fashion rather than function.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Very interesting, but after reading, it specifically states that it's the multi scaling that has a function on the battlefield, which can be implemented through all shapes basically.

    The 'digital' (square) patterning is most certainly either cost saving measures, fashion, or both.

    "The pixellated style, however, simplifies design and eases printing on fabric, compared to traditional patterns. While digital patterns are becoming widespread, critics maintain that the pixellated look is a question of fashion rather than function.[7]"

    Now I'm aware you just stated that 'it had a practical purpose' but your tone and framing suggests to me something other than 'its easier and cheaper to manufacture'.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    nah, you're totally off topic. I was responding to looks. sorry for distracting you away from looks by mentioning practicality. on practicality, the reason for the cybertruck panels is they're stainless steel. on looks, you didn't reply. since you avoided that topic, i suspect you're another sheep who jumped on the "ugly" bandwagon and aren't able to say much more than "ugly ugly ugly". no interest.

  • source
  • parent