this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
172 points (91.7% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6428 readers
46 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

There are many reasons to hate the Cybertruck. Looks, shoddy workmanship, flat out performance lies, Man-child business owner, etc...

But my biggest gripe, and this is the unpopular bit, is that in my opinion, it's not actually a truck at all.

The Cybertruck is a uni-body construction, often called a "car chassis". It shares that with the Honda Ridgeline, Hyundai Santa Cruz, and a few others. Trucks that are meant to do actual work use a body-on-frame construction because it has more ability to flex and twist when you put a heavy load in the bed or towing something heavy.

To put it simply, if you put a heavy enough load in the back of a uni-body truck, you're going to lose some traction on the front wheels as the weight will tilt the entire body backwards, whereas real trucks made for work are developed with the bed mounted separately to avoid that issue.

I know that yes, Santa Cruz, Cybertruck, Ridgeline, etc... are still technically classified as a truck. But in my (unpopular) opinion, anything uni-body shouldn't be classified as one.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I saw one of those once at a parking lot during a vacation to the usa. I didn't recognize it as first, and thought someone pulled a joke and made their car look like a sardine can.

It does look kinda cool in person.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Not only is it not a truck, it is also not cyber. It just cheap tin can scrap on wheels. The design looks like something a 6yr old kid would draw on paper.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The Ford maverick is a nice light duty unibody truck. Also, the f150 uses an aluminum frame.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Wait? Is the cybertruck a shitty electric camino?

Edit: deleted second electric

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

This is insulting to the El Camino

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

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...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Whistlin Diesel broke his truck waaaayy sooner than expected because of the uni-body.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My Volvo has a hitch weight rating of 500 lbs

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah. Almost every car has a higher vertical weight limit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This seems like a guarantee of failure for ANY actual use of the hitch. How is that even legal?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I’ve seen teslas with a bike carrier mounted to the hitch… if one were to put two e-bikes on the carrier it would be at capacity or close to it weight wise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

So if I see one parked, I'm hearing I should go hop up and down on the hitch and then run away.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Have you ever driven a Tesla of any variety? They were designed by people who clearly have never driven a car before in their lives.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

There's no way that barrel chested mfer is 160 pounds

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes please.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

After reading your comment I realized I didn't really know the difference between a 'pickup' and a 'truck'. I found this pretty informative:

https://motorandwheels.com/difference-pickup-and-truck/

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

While I am onboard with this, it is funny that the article keeps changing terminology and uses ‘pickups’ and ‘puckup trucks’ interchangeably.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I never understood how the "X" was an SUV.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

the x is for crossover, i think

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

In a previous post, somebody called it a name that will forever live in my head:

WankPanzer.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

The cyber truck is a Ute.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

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!”

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's a European lorry, American trucks don't have a flat nose.

(I am somewhat kidding)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

That's clearly a Japanese truck.

load more comments
view more: next ›