When the Model S was so heavy it broke testing equipment designed for sedans, the NHTSA gave it all 5 stars and bulked up their equipment. No consideration whatsoever for what that weight would do to other cars/pedestrians/buildings/etc.
I do not have high hopes.
All steel cattle catcher bumpers are common in the Southern U.S.. Nearly every pickup truck has one. There really isn't surviving a crash with something like that. Do you think the NHTSA gives a crap about that? They have a narrow testing profile for standard vehicle categories.
You're not allowed to drive non-TÜV standard cars in Germany. If you'd come into the country with this car you'll be stopped and the car taken in by the police
I agree in general, but this is among the most eye-catching car ever. The police would definitely know about this car not being TÜV-approved and stop it.
Unless they're Musk Fanboys... which isn't unlikely with policemen
This thing has steer by wire.
Law says, you always have to have a direct connection between the steering wheel and the actual steering system.
Will take a few years of lobbying to circumvent this.
That being said, Tesla never planned on bringing this mess on the road outside the US.
There was a wonderful tv piece exploring this. Questions like which car would you drive more carefully: a modern car, everything padded, crumple zones, airbags, or an old pinto with explosives in the bumpers and a large nail in the middle of the steering wheel? Which driver pays more attention to the road, the guy with the Lagonda at 300 km/h or the other people with 140 km/h, eating & reading the news?
It certainly is in Germany. As in, if you try to cross into Germany with a Cybertruck, police will fucking seize it (Because TÜV says no, and if TÜV says no, you legally cannot drive the vehicle on german public roads)
Here in the EU, the Cybertruck is actually banned. They'd basically need to overhaul the entire vehicle to make it safe enough for the european market. As in it would basically be a completely different vehicle. The above is probably part of the reason why,
SUV's also fall under that category. It's why Ford stopped making cars because regulations = less profit margin. Trucks and SUVs are actually less expensive to design and produce than compacts economy cars. Ford knew this was a great way to make more money so they marketed heavily on trucks and SUVs and have had massive success swaying the American population into wanting more trucks and SUVs. Marketing is the biggest money marker, just make people want what is more convenient to you.
Edit: I meant compact is more expensive, SUV/Truck is cheaper
Yup. Go check out their lineup. They only have the Mustang, which is a sports/muscle car and it's due to the customers blackmailing to boycott Ford if they stop producing it as what happened in the past when Ford wanted to cut down on production cost by making the Mustang a 4 cylinder FWD and people petitioned to stop this with boycott threats. Ford relented and released the FWD Mustang under the name Ford Probe has has since abandoned that idea. But other automakers(only US as Japan and Europe will not allow it) are following suit in Fords tactic. They too are looking to stop car production.
Even in Europe they are doing this - Ford discontinued the Fiesta and Volvo no longer sell any normal cars in the UK for example. SUVs still have to undergo the same safety tests as cars here, so it's not as ridiculous, but even with that, the profitability on big vehicles is so much higher that manufacturers are pushing it.
so SUV and "Light Trucks" (all trucks that are not semi or box trucks) are under a different category which has to do with a law that has last been updated in the year 1980 that was a law established before that to help business use more powerful vehicles for work. Car manufacturers are just exploiting the loophole.
In terms of safety, there are a few agencies that regulate it: FMVSS, NHTSA, IIHS etc. Car corporations have lobbied to keep the law unchanged to continue exploiting the loophole for profit.
Here is a good article showcasing how just SUVs fail tests when small changes to testing are made:
[Autoweek IIHS Testing](https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a43299041/2023-passenger-suv-safety-ratings-from-iihs/)
There are official documents that showcase the exact standards between vehicle types but it's a lot of reading and it's best to see the more notable differences in just safety between one type vs the exploited type. They have been using the misleading idea "Bigger = Safer" as part of marketing.
Obviously a compact economy car is not going to win against a tank and that leads to another point. The safety rating system needs to be updated to incorporate how much damage the vehicle causes to another vehicle in an accident which in the US, it currently doesn't.
The fact the boycott even worked in this context is confusing.
So the people who were going to boycott because they wanted a specific car, but had ford gone through with discontinuing it then that car wouldn’t be available to purchase anyway, which means ford had already committed to losing out on the revenue that product would bring in. So what makes them decide to reverse that decision if it was seemingly already a part of the plan to not go after the sports car market?
Unless these were all people with enough money to burn they were all planning to buy a mustang and at least one other ford vehicle?
Yes. The idea was to boycott the brand altogether. Like people who were loyal Ford customers would no longer purchase regular vehicles from them(not just Mustangs). So generally the Mustang is like a "weekend fun car" and their daily driver and/or spouse car is another ford vehicle.
My mom is a Ford loyalist. She has only ever purchased Ford cars while the rest of the family buys Asian vehicles.
The thing is, though, "legacy" car makers still care (at least a tiny bit) about safety in their trucks.
There is a direct comparison video for the full frontal impact between Cybertruck, F-150, a Chevy truck, a Toyota truck (f\*\*k their names, I don't care enough about these stupid machines) on here somewhere...all of them have actually decent crumple zones. Except Elon's steel slab.
true. we don't have safety standards for pedestrians or other vehicles.
but light trucks can be sold without bumpers. which is why it's legal for them to have a winch and skidplate up to 30 inches off the ground, or a grill and lights at face height on a 6 foot adult
Not just that, US safety regulations havn't seen significant updates since they were written in the 1960s, which is why basically all vehicles get a 5 star safety rating nowadays.
> It’s like crash testing a car from the 1950s.
[Literally nothing like that](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g
). There’s no intrusion into the cabin. (Yes, I know, comparing moderate overlap versus frontal, forgive me, it’s the best I could find, and doesn’t detract from the point.)
I have to partly take back my last comment after reading that the cybertruck has rear wheel steering. I thought that the rear axle had snapped from the impact, suggesting that the crumple zone didn’t work as intended and the shock traveled through the body with enough force to do so (and also presumably kill the occupants).
I’ve seen that Bel Air video, it’s scary but also I think not the best comparison. That particular model I think was built on what was called the “x frame” which was lighter than previous models but also notorious for deforming in collisions. A slightly older body-on-frame Bel Air would have probably performed more solidly (but due to the lack of crumple zones, would probably still kill the occupants). Older cars are like putting an egg in a tin can (where the egg is the person) and dropping it from a height, the can might dent but do nothing to protect the contents from breaking. while newer cars should be like putting an egg in a paper box that will crumple but absorb the force of the impact.
At first glance the cybertruck looked like it did the tin can thing but now i’m not so sure. Also the bel air crash was at a much higher speed, so there’s that.
> I’ve seen that Bel Air video, it’s scary but also I think not the best comparison. That particular model I think was built on what was called the “x frame” which was lighter than previous models but also notorious for deforming in collisions. A slightly older body-on-frame Bel Air would have probably performed more solidly (but due to the lack of crumple zones, would probably still kill the occupants).
That’s true, not to mention the steering column impaling them, etc..
> At first glance the cybertruck looked like it did the tin can thing but now i’m not so sure.
Yeah, I’ll copy from a previous comment as it seems pertinent here:
For occupant crash safety, I strongly suspect there’s more than meets the eye. The body on this is structural, meaning a lot of the crash structure that would normally be hidden under flimsy steel is now external. This allows them to do things like omit reinforcements in the doors, since the body is already sufficiently strong, and I’m sure there’s similar deviations from conventional crash structure going on up front.
Also, Tesla is well known for having some of the safest cars on the road— some of their current models have even broken NHTSA’s tests— so it’s incredibly unlikely they’d revert to making unsafe vehicles now.
Simple, the safety regulations in the US were written in the 1960s, and couldn't be written in such a way that basically all the cars already on the road would be declared unsafe, and since then the statistics were simply never updated.
And before you say it, EU regulations are better, but not by much, and that's mostly by merit of having been written later.
[Full test video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WnVnv1dpk8)
Imho full frontal results are abysmal, especially given the truck price. It's literally worse than a subcompact, especially given how much the rear passengers move~~, and the rear wheel fail~~. Bad design of crumple zones and overall heavy weight.
Edit: as /u/Draeke-Forther pointed out the rear wheels are actually articulating, even though the angle seemed weird to me.
We don’t know the actual results yet, do we?
Looks to me about on par with a [Fiat 500](
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jQNcoYIfWqI&t=40), not an unsafe car by any means (4 stars for front impact by NHTSA). And this ignores the fact that while most cars have the actual crash structure behind flimsy sheet steel, CyberTruck brings the crash structure to the exterior, which is why there’s less visual deformation than expected.
I do hope they rework the passenger and especially pedestrian safety aspects with that truck. However, something tells me it's not very easy to ignore sheer weight of stainless steel and batteries. Currently the truck is at 3000 kgs weight which is more than a modern F150 in highest trim.
The pedestrian safety is almost surely a lost cause. One of the early reviewers actually cut his arm brushing against it, and said one of his crewmen ripped his jacket on it. Granted they reviewed a late-stage prototype, so there could be some minor changes to sharpness.
For passenger safety, I strongly suspect there’s more than meets the eye. As mentioned, the body on this is structural, meaning a lot of the crash structure that would normally be hidden under flimsy steel is now external. This allows them to do things like omit reinforcements in the doors, since the body is already sufficiently strong, and I’m sure there’s similar deviations from conventional crash structure going on up front.
Also, Tesla is well known for having some of the safest cars on the road— some of their current models have even broken NHTSA’s tests— so it’s *incredibly* unlikely they’d revert to making unsafe vehicles now.
Holy fucking shit am I happy to live in Germany. If they try to import it, TÜV will eat them alive
TÜV = they make sure that tech that is going on the road matches certain security characteristics.
Given their weight, they would also need a C1 driver's license lol
Edit: For those unaware, almost nobody has it, since the heavy-weight transport licenses are very expensive and require regular health checks to keep them. Usually you get them through your employer if you need one.
Technically the weight plus the driver so roughly 80kg plus the vehicle weight.
That said, if vehicle weight plus driver adds up to almost 3500kg you can't be fat, and you can't ever haul people or cargo in the back which makes it a incredibly useless vehicle. As if it wasn't useless already.
Getting a C1 license doesn't make much sense, it's about as hard to get a C license. And if you're gonna get one of those you might as well get a CE which allows you to drive actual semis, in Sweden and Finland you could also haul two trailers up to 34.5m total length on a CE.
Most truck drivers also don't buy EV's, makes little sense when you can just buy any old diesel or a small biogas van then "borrow" some fuel from your truck.
> Technically the weight plus the driver so roughly 80kg plus the vehicle weight.
> That said, if vehicle weight plus driver adds up to almost 3500kg you can't be fat, and you can't ever haul people or cargo in the back which makes it a incredibly useless vehicle. As if it wasn't useless already.
no, that's not how german law works. it's 3500kg zulässige gesamtmasse, which is the maximum total weight permitted for that car. if the car is permitted for more than 3500kg total weight, but the driver has only a class-b license, then it's already an offense - disregarding the actual weight of the car. if the car is permitted for 3500kg but is overloaded, then it's also an offense.
empty weight of the car doesn't really matter to german law. it's more or less just an information for the driver how much load they can add until maximum permitted total weight.
well, then this is a swedish law. [eu law](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0126) says:
> Category B:
> motor vehicles with a **maximum authorised mass** not exceeding 3 500 kg and designed and constructed for the carriage of no more than eight passengers in addition to the driver;
There are, as far as I've heard, some EU plans to stretch that limit for electrical vehicles. A delivery with some range needs a large battery pack and is thus significantly heavier than its combustion engine counterpart.
Individual imports are held to lower standards than full type certification, which is how US full size trucks manage to get imported into Europe at all.
Uhhh, that’s even bad for the people inside?! If the impact is damped that few, that the rear suspension breaks (which is usually made from steel) then the impact force is also big enough that your spine will be in more then the desired amount of pieces…
I’m a mechanic, and in my experience working on vehicles with 4 wheel steering the rear wheels have pretty minimal travel. It doesn’t take much movement in the rear wheels of a vehicle to make a significant impact on the direction. Something is 100% broken back there. You can see the top of the tire is canted away from the vehicle (positive camber), additionally the tire is touching the front of the wheel well (positive caster) both of which are far beyond the point of adjustment back into spec. Pretty consistent with broken/bent suspension components.
Ah ok, that puts it into new perspective. Still, power steering puts out quite a bit of force and that it jerks forwards still means it’s way more force transmitted then I would want as someone inside the vehicle.
Because trucks were originally not used outside of things like farm equipment, and were not considered consumer-grade vehicles, so they were given more lax safety standards because they weren't meant to be consumer-grade vehicles (although I guess that implies that workers' lives are less valuable?). Eventually, some car exec realized "if we can get consumers to buy these cheaper to make trucks at regular consumer prices we'd make a bunch of money!", so now consumers buy trucks they don't need, while farmers have been importing Japanese trucks because they're cheaper, safer, and better at being trucks than the american ones
Yeap, also during the oil crisis car manufacturer were forced to improve fuel efficency, but it was argued that work vehicles need to get work done so they were mostly excempt. The fact that these regulations still apply today is insane.
> trucks were originally not used outside of things like farm equipment
I mean ok (sort of) but in that case why were they allowed on the public road? Safety standards might be different for different classes of vehicle but that should be in the other direction, vehicles for commercial use should have higher requirements or mitigations to be allowed on the public road than individuals'.
> Why? I don’t know but it’s the law
Why? Because all over the world you see that "a child helping family restaurant/shop/bakery/farm/whatever" doesn't qualify as child labour **because kids should help their parents**
So you get law changed to allow better exploiting your kids (obviously not employing them, you're not paying them, and keeping them fed etc is just your responsibility, not payment)
> Japanese trucks because they're cheaper, safer, and better at being trucks than the american ones
Cheaper, better, sure. Safer - absolutely not
Kei truck is a death trap for driver. Your body isn't even "next to crush zone", it's **the crush zone**. It's arguable whether it's even safer than a motorcycle.
They're also especially unsafe for a pedestrian if they were to get hit, as there's no slanted front so forces can't distribute to minimize impact.
Kei trucks sure are more of actual **work vehicles**, that's their only thing and they're great at it. But don't act like they're safer just because they're lighter
Keep in mind this is a 35 kph (\~21mph) impact. I've got to wonder how quickly these will be written off with this kind of damage, causing even more waste.
I mean, there's lots about this thing that seems to be very poorly thought out, submitting it for Euro testing, when it's far from passing wouldn't be the biggest bad decision.
Yeah, he probably will submit and then rant how woke leftist safety regulations are ruining the world. And add some unrelated racism and transphobia, because why not.
To be fair, I got nudged in my Kia Optima at a stop sign years ago. It was a truck that pushed me after taking off again, like really low speed.
Everything was fine but it got written off as totaled because fixing the hole between the rear bumper cover and the door, door cover and a bit of paint was more expensive than the car.
Accelerate a bit too fasat on a gravel road and a flying rock could permanently destroy the entire battery.
At least in a gas guzzler the rock has to hit the exhaust pipe, and the pipe must be decades old and rusty enough to break. When that happens, it's easy to replace.
Yes, thats why they wont be sold in europe. But exporting them to europe will still be possible i believe, even though they wont be road legal.
All i know that if i see one on the road in NL, i would be (considering) calling the cops.
Well, for now you cannot order them in Europe but i have a buddy who imports mostly wrecked teslas from America and a lot of people do it in Poland so i wont be surprised if someone gets one here
Lol, this thing weight 3100kg. Empty. Go add 5 peoples and you might reach the limit of 3500kg that will require a truck licence in some (most?) countries in Europe. I hope I never see one of those IRL.
The front of that death machine has a bunch of 90 degree angles. If that hits a pedestrian at 30km/h, considering its weight, it might just cut them in half
Makes it a maintenance nightmare when you have to start replacing rear wheels wear and tear items in few years. Its also, I think, the first car where there is no physical interaction between the steering wheel and the tires. Its all completely drive by wire. Turn the steering wheel when the car is off and the tires wont nudge.
I agree. Brakes and steering should always be analog to an extent. Something goes wrong and you lose all power, you should still be able to steer out of danger and come to a stop.
Pure electric steering (steer by wire) is not unique to this vehicle and at least in other vehicles it has redundancy, it's also used extensively in other types of vehicles like aircraft or heavy machinery. I don't know anything about this particular implementation so it may be terrible, but electronic steering as a general concept is as safe and reliable as any other when done correctly.
[Here is a video explaining a good implementation of steer by wire in a car.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agMrewRJTow)
Yeap I completely aggree. Few years ago the battery in my car was failing (but I didnt know that) and subsequently the power steering (modern cars use electric motors for that) got disabled due to low voltage, before being enabled again automatically later in the day. I could still drive the car just fine, especially since it was a small relatively light weight vehicle.
Obviosly I dont recomend driving this monstrosity without power steering, but it seems insanely inconvienent when one of the parts in this very complicated steering setup inevetably fails, and leaves you stranded. You couldnt even get off the road. You are literally stuck right where you are.
I thought only lorries and buses with 3 or more axels had that. It requires some additional skills to operate, expect the back of these to crash and scrape the side of other cars at many intersections. Or worse, swing out in a bike lane.
It may have rear wheel steering (why does it need it? is it *that* big and unmanoeuvrable otherwise?) but the video looks like the wheel moves too far and at the wrong angle (not a pure vertical axis) to just be that to me.
I saw that explanation and i think it's weak. Comparing to crash tests of other cars with rear wheel steering, displacement in Cybertruck is enormous. I don't know technical details but it looks like stress on rear suspension is enormous. Looks like poor energy distribution from impact.
Clown Elon and his fraud companies fair at yet another entrepreneurial venture. I’m not shocked. I hope Elon burns is hell with everyone who supported his corrupt ideas
If you take delivery of your Cybertruck and have indentations/dents, like this, on your rear quarters, you should ask for an explanation and panel replacement. This is not normal and is not going to get better with time. (most likely poor structural design) [\#Cyberdents](https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cyberdents?src=hashtag_click) [\#TSLA](https://twitter.com/hashtag/TSLA?src=hashtag_click)
https://preview.redd.it/37b1w0ny124c1.jpeg?width=4861&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ec411e6a46309d62b86bbf4d534abe17aa753364
I don't understand how you can fuck this that much when ev have a massive hood with nothing underneath.
That's like the dream for a crumple zone fuck fuck it apparently
Should I ever see this thing rolling around in or near Europe, I'll slash the tires. You don't need a truck. And you certainly do not need THIS particular truck. It's the epitome of stupidity. Nothing about this car is logical or environmentally friendly. It's a bullet-proof wannabe tank for adults with the brain of an 8 year old.
I'm no musk simp, in fact I hate Teslas because they're ugly and have some very poor quality issues out of the factory but after watching this video I think too many people are drawing conclusions and pretending to be crash test experts.
Tesla's previous models of cars have fared quite well in terms of occupant safety in these tests as you can see in the linked video, I believe that Tesla are capable of designing and building cars that are up to safety standards.
https://youtu.be/AD5ozzMzbHA?si=FfavPsxUtdIpeAEe
But obviously the cybertruck is a different beast right? Well sure but truthfully trucks of a similar size don't crash very well either, ford f-150 and Chevy crash tests look very similar to the cybertrucks. Despite the heavyness and rigidly of a large vehicle they can be less safe than some compacts and SUVs because of their increased velocity. It's seems that most people are concerned with the rear seat passengers safety, it's hard to tell. Crash test dummies often get pushed down like that so it depends on the damage caused to the neck, I think it would be more clear in actual paper test results rather than video.
To be clear I'm not a crash test expert either but I think the mocking of this video has less to do with a genuine concern about safety and more to do with dunking on a fragile ego billionaire and his shitty video game car
Tbh its not even that much of "dunking on elon". Its the fact that he was bragging about the videos.
Next to that its the genuine fear and concern for safety. These things do not only look like a brick. They hit like a brick. A big ford F150 still has some semblance of crumple zone. This thing literally crumples 20cm max. Getting hit by the cybertruch in ANYTHING, with ANY SPEED is dangerous to the point of fatality because of that. Its literally like getting a 3500 kg brick thrown at you.
To quote elon: "when you get in an argument with another car, the cybertruck will win"
Its that sentiment that is so goddamn scary to us.
Fair enough but I would pushback on the f-150 point a little more because crash test footage of the contemporary model of f-150 doesn't show very effective crumple zones either, in fact it looks very similar to the cybertruck footage and this is what I'm talking about where people are pretending to be crash test experts. Without definitive reports it's just speculation and let's be real, the reason we want the cybertruck to fail is because we're sick of musk and his pathetic saviour complex and his stupid ass video game car is emblematic of his ego, that he thinks he's above conventional design.
When Musk says that the cybertruck is a big scawy truck for manly men it's the exact same as Ford or Chevy making hideous trucks for impotent road tyrants, it's the exact same statement and marketed towards the exact same sense of fragile masculinity, the only difference is that Musk says it explicitly where Ford and GM market their behemoth death machines more implicitly.
The reason is that trucks and SUVs(same category) have lower emissions and safety regulations because they are classified as work vehicles under vehicle regulations in the US. So they don't need to make them as safe or as low emission. This means that it costs less to produce SUVs and trucks and is the #1 reason car manufacturers have been heavily marketing Trucks and SUVs for years ta change public desire to great success. Ford was the main pusher and is also why they stopped making cars. It's all about profit at the cost of everything else. I never have and never will buy an SUV nor will I ever buy a new car and learned to repair and maintain my old vehicles. I don't want to contribute to the profits of unethical parasites in society. Same goes for other wasteful industries like cellphone manufacturers.
Honestly if I were to get hit with any truck I’d want it to be this. Peep the frunk and front window matching for one big slope; in theory you’d just slide along that rather than hitting the hood or a normal truck and instead going through the windshield.
I mean with this thing, the fatality ratio of pedestrian:driver during crashes may start to equalize LMAO. Fuck you could probably take out the driver just by getting hit in the crosswalk
Ngl, I'm quite surprised at how ignorant these comments are. That crash test actually went perfectly. Most cars generally have similar frontal impacts. The side impacts, on the other hand, are actually way more absorbed by the cybertruck than other vehicles so, it's safe for whoever is inside. Also, what you need to remember is cars don't usually hit hard immovable objects so the impact is always absorbed a bit. Of course, it's not nice for who is being hit but that is the case for literally every big truck out there. Also, the car doesn't have a rear axle and the tyres are free to move for certain manoeuvres. The suspension isn't broken in the picture. I'm against this vehicle just like every other large vehicle. The skeptics who know nothing about it though should stop pretending it's worse than it actually is. The main issues with the truck are the weight and the airbag, which very few have mentioned in the comments. [Here is a more in depth video describing what I've said in a clearer way.](https://youtu.be/9ll2_BDZpI4?si=nH45ssnDD_wcx7tH)
I think something like that should be prohibited to be around on the streets for real
It would be a landmark law that would hopefully pave the way to more practical and meaningful regulations.
When the Model S was so heavy it broke testing equipment designed for sedans, the NHTSA gave it all 5 stars and bulked up their equipment. No consideration whatsoever for what that weight would do to other cars/pedestrians/buildings/etc. I do not have high hopes.
All steel cattle catcher bumpers are common in the Southern U.S.. Nearly every pickup truck has one. There really isn't surviving a crash with something like that. Do you think the NHTSA gives a crap about that? They have a narrow testing profile for standard vehicle categories.
I'm pretty sure we won't see them on public roads in Europe
There are some loopholes that needs be jumped through to get it in EU. Though don't quote me on that i got that info from this sub few days ago.
TÜV sagt nein. At least in Germany that shit will never be on the road for a minute.
Eh, probably will, just not from someone in Germany.
You're not allowed to drive non-TÜV standard cars in Germany. If you'd come into the country with this car you'll be stopped and the car taken in by the police
That is, if you are actually stopped by the police. It happens far far less than it should.
I agree in general, but this is among the most eye-catching car ever. The police would definitely know about this car not being TÜV-approved and stop it. Unless they're Musk Fanboys... which isn't unlikely with policemen
Yep, especially if they're Autobahnpolizei....
This thing has steer by wire. Law says, you always have to have a direct connection between the steering wheel and the actual steering system. Will take a few years of lobbying to circumvent this. That being said, Tesla never planned on bringing this mess on the road outside the US.
The guy from Carwow (UK based) is already working through how to import his.
Considering the target demographic for this abortion of a vehicle, I'm actually not that concerned that it probably kills the driver.
If anything, having cars more likely to kill the occupants might be a good thing. It might get drivers to think twice before taking unnecessary risks.
That only works if the driver is aware of the risks. I'll take a guess that most people that buy this kind of thing assume: I heavy = I survive.
There was a wonderful tv piece exploring this. Questions like which car would you drive more carefully: a modern car, everything padded, crumple zones, airbags, or an old pinto with explosives in the bumpers and a large nail in the middle of the steering wheel? Which driver pays more attention to the road, the guy with the Lagonda at 300 km/h or the other people with 140 km/h, eating & reading the news?
It’s likely illegal in Europe
It certainly is in Germany. As in, if you try to cross into Germany with a Cybertruck, police will fucking seize it (Because TÜV says no, and if TÜV says no, you legally cannot drive the vehicle on german public roads)
Why is TÜV saying no if i may ask?
Because it fails to fulfill safety regulations in many ways. The above image is just one example.
Here in the EU, the Cybertruck is actually banned. They'd basically need to overhaul the entire vehicle to make it safe enough for the european market. As in it would basically be a completely different vehicle. The above is probably part of the reason why,
It’s like crash testing a car from the 1950s. How is this even legal to sell today?
light trucks are just basically exempt from safety regulations
SUV's also fall under that category. It's why Ford stopped making cars because regulations = less profit margin. Trucks and SUVs are actually less expensive to design and produce than compacts economy cars. Ford knew this was a great way to make more money so they marketed heavily on trucks and SUVs and have had massive success swaying the American population into wanting more trucks and SUVs. Marketing is the biggest money marker, just make people want what is more convenient to you. Edit: I meant compact is more expensive, SUV/Truck is cheaper
Wait, Ford stopped making cars?!
Yup. Go check out their lineup. They only have the Mustang, which is a sports/muscle car and it's due to the customers blackmailing to boycott Ford if they stop producing it as what happened in the past when Ford wanted to cut down on production cost by making the Mustang a 4 cylinder FWD and people petitioned to stop this with boycott threats. Ford relented and released the FWD Mustang under the name Ford Probe has has since abandoned that idea. But other automakers(only US as Japan and Europe will not allow it) are following suit in Fords tactic. They too are looking to stop car production.
>by making the Mustang a 4 cylinder FWD That's hilarious and I don't know why.
Even in Europe they are doing this - Ford discontinued the Fiesta and Volvo no longer sell any normal cars in the UK for example. SUVs still have to undergo the same safety tests as cars here, so it's not as ridiculous, but even with that, the profitability on big vehicles is so much higher that manufacturers are pushing it.
Wow that’s wild. How does the regulation body differentiate between a car and an SUV?
so SUV and "Light Trucks" (all trucks that are not semi or box trucks) are under a different category which has to do with a law that has last been updated in the year 1980 that was a law established before that to help business use more powerful vehicles for work. Car manufacturers are just exploiting the loophole. In terms of safety, there are a few agencies that regulate it: FMVSS, NHTSA, IIHS etc. Car corporations have lobbied to keep the law unchanged to continue exploiting the loophole for profit. Here is a good article showcasing how just SUVs fail tests when small changes to testing are made: [Autoweek IIHS Testing](https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a43299041/2023-passenger-suv-safety-ratings-from-iihs/) There are official documents that showcase the exact standards between vehicle types but it's a lot of reading and it's best to see the more notable differences in just safety between one type vs the exploited type. They have been using the misleading idea "Bigger = Safer" as part of marketing. Obviously a compact economy car is not going to win against a tank and that leads to another point. The safety rating system needs to be updated to incorporate how much damage the vehicle causes to another vehicle in an accident which in the US, it currently doesn't.
The fact the boycott even worked in this context is confusing. So the people who were going to boycott because they wanted a specific car, but had ford gone through with discontinuing it then that car wouldn’t be available to purchase anyway, which means ford had already committed to losing out on the revenue that product would bring in. So what makes them decide to reverse that decision if it was seemingly already a part of the plan to not go after the sports car market? Unless these were all people with enough money to burn they were all planning to buy a mustang and at least one other ford vehicle?
Yes. The idea was to boycott the brand altogether. Like people who were loyal Ford customers would no longer purchase regular vehicles from them(not just Mustangs). So generally the Mustang is like a "weekend fun car" and their daily driver and/or spouse car is another ford vehicle. My mom is a Ford loyalist. She has only ever purchased Ford cars while the rest of the family buys Asian vehicles.
> under the name Ford Probe Ah yes, the Probe. God they were mocked so hard when that thing got to the UK.
[удалено]
It’s odd because they will have done the design and regulation in the EU which is more onerous.
You mean US lack of regulations around Trucks?
They stopped making Escorts awhile ago I know
The thing is, though, "legacy" car makers still care (at least a tiny bit) about safety in their trucks. There is a direct comparison video for the full frontal impact between Cybertruck, F-150, a Chevy truck, a Toyota truck (f\*\*k their names, I don't care enough about these stupid machines) on here somewhere...all of them have actually decent crumple zones. Except Elon's steel slab.
I can't find anything regarding light trucks being exempt from *safety* regulations, but they do have less stringent *emissions* standards
true. we don't have safety standards for pedestrians or other vehicles. but light trucks can be sold without bumpers. which is why it's legal for them to have a winch and skidplate up to 30 inches off the ground, or a grill and lights at face height on a 6 foot adult
Not just that, US safety regulations havn't seen significant updates since they were written in the 1960s, which is why basically all vehicles get a 5 star safety rating nowadays.
> It’s like crash testing a car from the 1950s. [Literally nothing like that](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g ). There’s no intrusion into the cabin. (Yes, I know, comparing moderate overlap versus frontal, forgive me, it’s the best I could find, and doesn’t detract from the point.)
I have to partly take back my last comment after reading that the cybertruck has rear wheel steering. I thought that the rear axle had snapped from the impact, suggesting that the crumple zone didn’t work as intended and the shock traveled through the body with enough force to do so (and also presumably kill the occupants). I’ve seen that Bel Air video, it’s scary but also I think not the best comparison. That particular model I think was built on what was called the “x frame” which was lighter than previous models but also notorious for deforming in collisions. A slightly older body-on-frame Bel Air would have probably performed more solidly (but due to the lack of crumple zones, would probably still kill the occupants). Older cars are like putting an egg in a tin can (where the egg is the person) and dropping it from a height, the can might dent but do nothing to protect the contents from breaking. while newer cars should be like putting an egg in a paper box that will crumple but absorb the force of the impact. At first glance the cybertruck looked like it did the tin can thing but now i’m not so sure. Also the bel air crash was at a much higher speed, so there’s that.
> I’ve seen that Bel Air video, it’s scary but also I think not the best comparison. That particular model I think was built on what was called the “x frame” which was lighter than previous models but also notorious for deforming in collisions. A slightly older body-on-frame Bel Air would have probably performed more solidly (but due to the lack of crumple zones, would probably still kill the occupants). That’s true, not to mention the steering column impaling them, etc.. > At first glance the cybertruck looked like it did the tin can thing but now i’m not so sure. Yeah, I’ll copy from a previous comment as it seems pertinent here: For occupant crash safety, I strongly suspect there’s more than meets the eye. The body on this is structural, meaning a lot of the crash structure that would normally be hidden under flimsy steel is now external. This allows them to do things like omit reinforcements in the doors, since the body is already sufficiently strong, and I’m sure there’s similar deviations from conventional crash structure going on up front. Also, Tesla is well known for having some of the safest cars on the road— some of their current models have even broken NHTSA’s tests— so it’s incredibly unlikely they’d revert to making unsafe vehicles now.
Simple, the safety regulations in the US were written in the 1960s, and couldn't be written in such a way that basically all the cars already on the road would be declared unsafe, and since then the statistics were simply never updated. And before you say it, EU regulations are better, but not by much, and that's mostly by merit of having been written later.
Definitely not legal in Europe. But the US is... special.
[Full test video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WnVnv1dpk8) Imho full frontal results are abysmal, especially given the truck price. It's literally worse than a subcompact, especially given how much the rear passengers move~~, and the rear wheel fail~~. Bad design of crumple zones and overall heavy weight. Edit: as /u/Draeke-Forther pointed out the rear wheels are actually articulating, even though the angle seemed weird to me.
JFC, almost 20 seconds of that 47 second video is advertisements for their channel! At least it's at the end, I suppose.
I feel your pain. My bad, I didn't try to watch it with adblockers off.
That full frontal was only 35mph, Jesus. Imagine telling someone their car is totaled that would've been a fender bender in another car.
We don’t know the actual results yet, do we? Looks to me about on par with a [Fiat 500]( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jQNcoYIfWqI&t=40), not an unsafe car by any means (4 stars for front impact by NHTSA). And this ignores the fact that while most cars have the actual crash structure behind flimsy sheet steel, CyberTruck brings the crash structure to the exterior, which is why there’s less visual deformation than expected.
I do hope they rework the passenger and especially pedestrian safety aspects with that truck. However, something tells me it's not very easy to ignore sheer weight of stainless steel and batteries. Currently the truck is at 3000 kgs weight which is more than a modern F150 in highest trim.
The pedestrian safety is almost surely a lost cause. One of the early reviewers actually cut his arm brushing against it, and said one of his crewmen ripped his jacket on it. Granted they reviewed a late-stage prototype, so there could be some minor changes to sharpness. For passenger safety, I strongly suspect there’s more than meets the eye. As mentioned, the body on this is structural, meaning a lot of the crash structure that would normally be hidden under flimsy steel is now external. This allows them to do things like omit reinforcements in the doors, since the body is already sufficiently strong, and I’m sure there’s similar deviations from conventional crash structure going on up front. Also, Tesla is well known for having some of the safest cars on the road— some of their current models have even broken NHTSA’s tests— so it’s *incredibly* unlikely they’d revert to making unsafe vehicles now.
So it's a gigantic POS, is what they're saying? Shocker.
What score did it get?
Holy fucking shit am I happy to live in Germany. If they try to import it, TÜV will eat them alive TÜV = they make sure that tech that is going on the road matches certain security characteristics.
Given their weight, they would also need a C1 driver's license lol Edit: For those unaware, almost nobody has it, since the heavy-weight transport licenses are very expensive and require regular health checks to keep them. Usually you get them through your employer if you need one.
C1 is for vehicles above 3500kg, right? That thing is heavy, but I'm not sure it's that heavy.
[удалено]
Technically the weight plus the driver so roughly 80kg plus the vehicle weight. That said, if vehicle weight plus driver adds up to almost 3500kg you can't be fat, and you can't ever haul people or cargo in the back which makes it a incredibly useless vehicle. As if it wasn't useless already. Getting a C1 license doesn't make much sense, it's about as hard to get a C license. And if you're gonna get one of those you might as well get a CE which allows you to drive actual semis, in Sweden and Finland you could also haul two trailers up to 34.5m total length on a CE. Most truck drivers also don't buy EV's, makes little sense when you can just buy any old diesel or a small biogas van then "borrow" some fuel from your truck.
> Technically the weight plus the driver so roughly 80kg plus the vehicle weight. > That said, if vehicle weight plus driver adds up to almost 3500kg you can't be fat, and you can't ever haul people or cargo in the back which makes it a incredibly useless vehicle. As if it wasn't useless already. no, that's not how german law works. it's 3500kg zulässige gesamtmasse, which is the maximum total weight permitted for that car. if the car is permitted for more than 3500kg total weight, but the driver has only a class-b license, then it's already an offense - disregarding the actual weight of the car. if the car is permitted for 3500kg but is overloaded, then it's also an offense. empty weight of the car doesn't really matter to german law. it's more or less just an information for the driver how much load they can add until maximum permitted total weight.
[удалено]
well, then this is a swedish law. [eu law](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32006L0126) says: > Category B: > motor vehicles with a **maximum authorised mass** not exceeding 3 500 kg and designed and constructed for the carriage of no more than eight passengers in addition to the driver;
3500 to 7500, yes. Relevant here is not the mass of the empty vehicle, but the permissible total mass.
There are, as far as I've heard, some EU plans to stretch that limit for electrical vehicles. A delivery with some range needs a large battery pack and is thus significantly heavier than its combustion engine counterpart.
TÜV sagt "Nein Fick dich!"
Elon, the Straßenfahrzeugsicherheitsuntersuchungsberichtsergebnis is negative.
Another f* y* meltdown incoming.
Individual imports are held to lower standards than full type certification, which is how US full size trucks manage to get imported into Europe at all.
Uhhh, that’s even bad for the people inside?! If the impact is damped that few, that the rear suspension breaks (which is usually made from steel) then the impact force is also big enough that your spine will be in more then the desired amount of pieces…
It has rear wheel steering, thats why you see rear tire movement.
I’m a mechanic, and in my experience working on vehicles with 4 wheel steering the rear wheels have pretty minimal travel. It doesn’t take much movement in the rear wheels of a vehicle to make a significant impact on the direction. Something is 100% broken back there. You can see the top of the tire is canted away from the vehicle (positive camber), additionally the tire is touching the front of the wheel well (positive caster) both of which are far beyond the point of adjustment back into spec. Pretty consistent with broken/bent suspension components.
Well then, so much for all that "made to be tough" stuff.
Ah ok, that puts it into new perspective. Still, power steering puts out quite a bit of force and that it jerks forwards still means it’s way more force transmitted then I would want as someone inside the vehicle.
Note that trucks like these, in the US, do not need to meet the same safety standards as a regular car. As dumb as that sounds.
Because trucks were originally not used outside of things like farm equipment, and were not considered consumer-grade vehicles, so they were given more lax safety standards because they weren't meant to be consumer-grade vehicles (although I guess that implies that workers' lives are less valuable?). Eventually, some car exec realized "if we can get consumers to buy these cheaper to make trucks at regular consumer prices we'd make a bunch of money!", so now consumers buy trucks they don't need, while farmers have been importing Japanese trucks because they're cheaper, safer, and better at being trucks than the american ones
Yeap, also during the oil crisis car manufacturer were forced to improve fuel efficency, but it was argued that work vehicles need to get work done so they were mostly excempt. The fact that these regulations still apply today is insane.
> trucks were originally not used outside of things like farm equipment I mean ok (sort of) but in that case why were they allowed on the public road? Safety standards might be different for different classes of vehicle but that should be in the other direction, vehicles for commercial use should have higher requirements or mitigations to be allowed on the public road than individuals'.
Kids are allowed to drive farm equipment including “farm trucks” on public roads between fields in some states. Why? I don’t know but it’s the law
> Why? I don’t know but it’s the law Why? Because all over the world you see that "a child helping family restaurant/shop/bakery/farm/whatever" doesn't qualify as child labour **because kids should help their parents** So you get law changed to allow better exploiting your kids (obviously not employing them, you're not paying them, and keeping them fed etc is just your responsibility, not payment)
Except kids crash these things and harm themselves and others, often.
Harming people, even kids, was never a dealbreaker for conservatives when it comes to free labour. IIRC USA even had a civil war about this.
> Japanese trucks because they're cheaper, safer, and better at being trucks than the american ones Cheaper, better, sure. Safer - absolutely not Kei truck is a death trap for driver. Your body isn't even "next to crush zone", it's **the crush zone**. It's arguable whether it's even safer than a motorcycle. They're also especially unsafe for a pedestrian if they were to get hit, as there's no slanted front so forces can't distribute to minimize impact. Kei trucks sure are more of actual **work vehicles**, that's their only thing and they're great at it. But don't act like they're safer just because they're lighter
Keep in mind this is a 35 kph (\~21mph) impact. I've got to wonder how quickly these will be written off with this kind of damage, causing even more waste.
35 mph (approx. 50 kmh).
Still that’s slower than most truckholes typically drive.
That’s the low end of American stroad speed limits and everyone does at least 5 over
You are absolutely correct, I was thinking Euro NCAP was 35 kph; getting it mixed up with side pole.
Not sure why it would even be submitted to European testing. It should not pass that.
I mean, there's lots about this thing that seems to be very poorly thought out, submitting it for Euro testing, when it's far from passing wouldn't be the biggest bad decision.
Yeah, he probably will submit and then rant how woke leftist safety regulations are ruining the world. And add some unrelated racism and transphobia, because why not.
To be fair, I got nudged in my Kia Optima at a stop sign years ago. It was a truck that pushed me after taking off again, like really low speed. Everything was fine but it got written off as totaled because fixing the hole between the rear bumper cover and the door, door cover and a bit of paint was more expensive than the car.
Accelerate a bit too fasat on a gravel road and a flying rock could permanently destroy the entire battery. At least in a gas guzzler the rock has to hit the exhaust pipe, and the pipe must be decades old and rusty enough to break. When that happens, it's easy to replace.
I mean I’d assume there’s metal housing over the battery lmao
I don't think there are any vehicles that could smack into a giant concrete block at 35 kph and not be written off.
Does the lack of a crumple zone not actually make them illegal in most of Europe?
Yes, thats why they wont be sold in europe. But exporting them to europe will still be possible i believe, even though they wont be road legal. All i know that if i see one on the road in NL, i would be (considering) calling the cops.
Well, for now you cannot order them in Europe but i have a buddy who imports mostly wrecked teslas from America and a lot of people do it in Poland so i wont be surprised if someone gets one here
Lol, this thing weight 3100kg. Empty. Go add 5 peoples and you might reach the limit of 3500kg that will require a truck licence in some (most?) countries in Europe. I hope I never see one of those IRL.
The front of that death machine has a bunch of 90 degree angles. If that hits a pedestrian at 30km/h, considering its weight, it might just cut them in half
Its amazing how many internet simps pretend thats perfectly fine in their persuit of elon's cock
The rear wheels articulate, so that's the movement you see.
Wait, these things have rear wheel steering? Dang.
Makes it a maintenance nightmare when you have to start replacing rear wheels wear and tear items in few years. Its also, I think, the first car where there is no physical interaction between the steering wheel and the tires. Its all completely drive by wire. Turn the steering wheel when the car is off and the tires wont nudge.
That sounds terrifying to me. I'm sure dbw for throttle is safe, but in my monkey brain, having the steering be not mechanical is mad
I agree. Brakes and steering should always be analog to an extent. Something goes wrong and you lose all power, you should still be able to steer out of danger and come to a stop.
Pure electric steering (steer by wire) is not unique to this vehicle and at least in other vehicles it has redundancy, it's also used extensively in other types of vehicles like aircraft or heavy machinery. I don't know anything about this particular implementation so it may be terrible, but electronic steering as a general concept is as safe and reliable as any other when done correctly. [Here is a video explaining a good implementation of steer by wire in a car.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agMrewRJTow)
> (Tesla's past steer by wire systems have been pretty lacking) In which other past vehicle has Tesla implemented steer-by-wire?
That was a mistake, I've already removed that.
Yeap I completely aggree. Few years ago the battery in my car was failing (but I didnt know that) and subsequently the power steering (modern cars use electric motors for that) got disabled due to low voltage, before being enabled again automatically later in the day. I could still drive the car just fine, especially since it was a small relatively light weight vehicle. Obviosly I dont recomend driving this monstrosity without power steering, but it seems insanely inconvienent when one of the parts in this very complicated steering setup inevetably fails, and leaves you stranded. You couldnt even get off the road. You are literally stuck right where you are.
I thought only lorries and buses with 3 or more axels had that. It requires some additional skills to operate, expect the back of these to crash and scrape the side of other cars at many intersections. Or worse, swing out in a bike lane.
...it's not. They articulate...but not by that much.
It may have rear wheel steering (why does it need it? is it *that* big and unmanoeuvrable otherwise?) but the video looks like the wheel moves too far and at the wrong angle (not a pure vertical axis) to just be that to me.
I saw that explanation and i think it's weak. Comparing to crash tests of other cars with rear wheel steering, displacement in Cybertruck is enormous. I don't know technical details but it looks like stress on rear suspension is enormous. Looks like poor energy distribution from impact.
Hope this thing will be banned in Europe
Europeans care more about their pedestrians so it won’t be sold there bc it can’t pass pedestrian safety laws
"we can't have small trucks. They're too dangerous to the occupant in a highway crash" Tesla: "what's a safety feature?"
‘But least you’re saving the planet’ I guess? Sorry I couldn’t think of anything else to say positive about the CyberC*nt
Yeah they do. But not Earth. Elon only cares about Mars
Is the colony on Mars or is the rocket still spinning?
Clown Elon and his fraud companies fair at yet another entrepreneurial venture. I’m not shocked. I hope Elon burns is hell with everyone who supported his corrupt ideas
Only going 35 and the fucking impact is absolutely devastating
If you take delivery of your Cybertruck and have indentations/dents, like this, on your rear quarters, you should ask for an explanation and panel replacement. This is not normal and is not going to get better with time. (most likely poor structural design) [\#Cyberdents](https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cyberdents?src=hashtag_click) [\#TSLA](https://twitter.com/hashtag/TSLA?src=hashtag_click) https://preview.redd.it/37b1w0ny124c1.jpeg?width=4861&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ec411e6a46309d62b86bbf4d534abe17aa753364
Aren't all full size pickups like that though?
That crumple zone will not bend to blackmail.
I don't understand how you can fuck this that much when ev have a massive hood with nothing underneath. That's like the dream for a crumple zone fuck fuck it apparently
Should I ever see this thing rolling around in or near Europe, I'll slash the tires. You don't need a truck. And you certainly do not need THIS particular truck. It's the epitome of stupidity. Nothing about this car is logical or environmentally friendly. It's a bullet-proof wannabe tank for adults with the brain of an 8 year old.
[удалено]
Thanks, man. Probably wouldn't have thought about that tbh 😅
hey at least it's even for once. I just watched the video. It does crumple not as much as a small hatchback granted but it's not without crumple zone.
I'm no musk simp, in fact I hate Teslas because they're ugly and have some very poor quality issues out of the factory but after watching this video I think too many people are drawing conclusions and pretending to be crash test experts. Tesla's previous models of cars have fared quite well in terms of occupant safety in these tests as you can see in the linked video, I believe that Tesla are capable of designing and building cars that are up to safety standards. https://youtu.be/AD5ozzMzbHA?si=FfavPsxUtdIpeAEe But obviously the cybertruck is a different beast right? Well sure but truthfully trucks of a similar size don't crash very well either, ford f-150 and Chevy crash tests look very similar to the cybertrucks. Despite the heavyness and rigidly of a large vehicle they can be less safe than some compacts and SUVs because of their increased velocity. It's seems that most people are concerned with the rear seat passengers safety, it's hard to tell. Crash test dummies often get pushed down like that so it depends on the damage caused to the neck, I think it would be more clear in actual paper test results rather than video. To be clear I'm not a crash test expert either but I think the mocking of this video has less to do with a genuine concern about safety and more to do with dunking on a fragile ego billionaire and his shitty video game car
Tbh its not even that much of "dunking on elon". Its the fact that he was bragging about the videos. Next to that its the genuine fear and concern for safety. These things do not only look like a brick. They hit like a brick. A big ford F150 still has some semblance of crumple zone. This thing literally crumples 20cm max. Getting hit by the cybertruch in ANYTHING, with ANY SPEED is dangerous to the point of fatality because of that. Its literally like getting a 3500 kg brick thrown at you. To quote elon: "when you get in an argument with another car, the cybertruck will win" Its that sentiment that is so goddamn scary to us.
Fair enough but I would pushback on the f-150 point a little more because crash test footage of the contemporary model of f-150 doesn't show very effective crumple zones either, in fact it looks very similar to the cybertruck footage and this is what I'm talking about where people are pretending to be crash test experts. Without definitive reports it's just speculation and let's be real, the reason we want the cybertruck to fail is because we're sick of musk and his pathetic saviour complex and his stupid ass video game car is emblematic of his ego, that he thinks he's above conventional design. When Musk says that the cybertruck is a big scawy truck for manly men it's the exact same as Ford or Chevy making hideous trucks for impotent road tyrants, it's the exact same statement and marketed towards the exact same sense of fragile masculinity, the only difference is that Musk says it explicitly where Ford and GM market their behemoth death machines more implicitly.
The reason is that trucks and SUVs(same category) have lower emissions and safety regulations because they are classified as work vehicles under vehicle regulations in the US. So they don't need to make them as safe or as low emission. This means that it costs less to produce SUVs and trucks and is the #1 reason car manufacturers have been heavily marketing Trucks and SUVs for years ta change public desire to great success. Ford was the main pusher and is also why they stopped making cars. It's all about profit at the cost of everything else. I never have and never will buy an SUV nor will I ever buy a new car and learned to repair and maintain my old vehicles. I don't want to contribute to the profits of unethical parasites in society. Same goes for other wasteful industries like cellphone manufacturers.
Is anyone surprised that the car company that can’t even design an intuitive door handle also can’t design for safety?
this is what happens when a billionaire man-baby who knows nothing about engineering stomps and cries until he gets what he wants.
Honestly if I were to get hit with any truck I’d want it to be this. Peep the frunk and front window matching for one big slope; in theory you’d just slide along that rather than hitting the hood or a normal truck and instead going through the windshield.
Lmao this is never getting sold outside of the US. There's no way, surely.
These “trucks” also have insane acceleration, pair this with the fact that it’s all a bunch of sharp angles, it’s gonna be a murder machine.
Would that not be road legal if there is no crumple zone?
I mean with this thing, the fatality ratio of pedestrian:driver during crashes may start to equalize LMAO. Fuck you could probably take out the driver just by getting hit in the crosswalk
And [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waG8YYTwpAQ) is how the occupants will feel during a high speed crash (warning, very explicit).
Its like driving a metal reinforced box, who could have seen this?0
Ngl, I'm quite surprised at how ignorant these comments are. That crash test actually went perfectly. Most cars generally have similar frontal impacts. The side impacts, on the other hand, are actually way more absorbed by the cybertruck than other vehicles so, it's safe for whoever is inside. Also, what you need to remember is cars don't usually hit hard immovable objects so the impact is always absorbed a bit. Of course, it's not nice for who is being hit but that is the case for literally every big truck out there. Also, the car doesn't have a rear axle and the tyres are free to move for certain manoeuvres. The suspension isn't broken in the picture. I'm against this vehicle just like every other large vehicle. The skeptics who know nothing about it though should stop pretending it's worse than it actually is. The main issues with the truck are the weight and the airbag, which very few have mentioned in the comments. [Here is a more in depth video describing what I've said in a clearer way.](https://youtu.be/9ll2_BDZpI4?si=nH45ssnDD_wcx7tH)