Working pickups in the wild are subject to lots of sharp impacts that regular cars do not normally get. Glass is a big problem.

>Working pickups in the wild are subject to lots of sharp impacts that regular cars do not normally get.

realistically this vehicle has very few of the traits needed in a work pickup.

Expensive and remote repair, lots of gadgets to break, difficult to remotely fuel, very likely costly compared to the cheapest alternatives.

It's like an anti-Jeep.

This seems to me to be like an electric Honda Ridgeline; a truck made for grocery-getting, mall-hopping, and very light offroad duty.

Also : there are glass formulations that are better suited for tear and puncture resistance than bulletproofed materials. There are trade offs when those materials don't need to deal with the same kinetic energy as a bullet, but i'm not educated enough on the subject to say much more.

> Expensive and remote repair, lots of gadgets to break, difficult to remotely fuel, very likely costly compared to the cheapest alternatives.

I really don't understand this argument. Ford/GM/FCA 1/2 ton trucks are in a gadget/gimmick arms race and pretty terrible at executing it. The new 2019 Dodge Ram has been a disaster for new owners. I won't provide references because it is a simple google search. (For bonus points research the ongoing 2020 Ford Explorer debacle). Objective observers give Ford the nod for reliability of the big 3, and that's why Ford can charge about a 10% premium.

And that Ford/GM/FCA builds gadget-full and reliable pickup trucks seems to be a collective delusion of the truck enthusiasts. Toyota Tundra hasn't been meaningfully updated in 10 years and still sells like crazy. Toyota hasn't had to update it with gadgets because it is reliable like all Toyotas. It correspondingly has significantly higher new price (for given features) and resale value than any of the other 3 brands.

Tesla's electric motor drivetrain formula is already proving to be lower total cost of ownership [1].

As for the Tesla truck, airbag suspension is a notorious reliability item from any mfg, they all source from similar Tier 1 suppliers. So maybe Tesla decides to insource this? And that retractable bedcover looks prone to breaking. But besides those, everything else are things Tesla has already proven to be more reliable than ICE alternatives.

As for difficulty to remotely fuel, are there more power outlets or gas stations in the world? Motivated people find solutions to EV logistics and it is getting easier every year.

Tesla has also said the Cybertruck will come with a solar panel option that can add 10-30 miles per day given configuration.

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-math-shows-teslas-mod...

Realistically only a very small percentage of pickups or Jeeps, even on the high end, are working vehicles. It's just a different form of virtue signaling.

Nobody has an interest in talking about it, but pickup trucks and truck culture in the US are a marketing driven phenomenon. It stems from the fact that most US auto manufacturers' profit is driven though light trucks as the result of the 1964 chicken tax. They are appallingly impractical and expensive for the most part, and I'd bet 99% of Silverado High Country package trucks doing no more heavy duty than typical suburb traffic, too. I think Tesla has just embraced the world as it is rather than trying to shift consumer preferences.

The fact that the truck looks like a Warthog from the Halo video games aside, I feel that this truck is destined for the defense market. Overly sturdy frame, bulletproof windows, no gasoline. Electric vehicles that can self-charge through solar seem to be a massive logistical advantage. You can reduce the need for fuel supply lines.

It could recharge through solar in a day or two, if you have a house's worth of panels, and the clouds cooperate.

Imagine deployable solar canvases! Similar to how satellites collect power. In the past two decades, I think this could have been useful. The US deployments were in the middle east (plenty of sunshine) and were mostly fought without a frontline through patrol missions out of bases (plenty of sitting around waiting for something to happen).

Why would you need an SUV in urban areas?

Because station wagons aren't as profitable for Ford. I'm not even kidding. A lot of groups benefit from increased consumption from this. Auto companies get protection in the light truck segment from foreign competition. Gas companies sell more gas. There is more churn on the consumer loan market as people overextend themselves to buy them (instead of getting more practical coupes or sedans and renting pickups as needed).

Because some of us are tall.

I commute with a 2.5L Golf, I get 25 mpg in urban mountain driving. Stick shift, it's a blast to drive. However, it's also a massive pain in the ass to get in and out of. Especially since my recent abdominal surgery.

When I slip into my SUV I really appreciate the extra space.

When I load all the crap modern children have (car seats, strollers, pack and play, ect) and lug them 300 miles to their grandparents (which I used to do monthly, now once every two months), I also appreciate the extra room.

Speaking of kids, I really appreciate having an extra 1000 lb of inertia (vs. the Golf) protecting them when some idiot on his phone crashes into me. Fellow millennials! Put the phone down!

If (when, really) I move back to CND, I'll appreciate towing 5000 lb trailer worth of stuff to have while the moving companies does their thing.

And you know the best part of the SUV? The Golf doesn't get much better millage! I save more money from the cheaper tires the Golf takes than I do on the gas!

Station wagons, being lower and not outfitted for 4wd, have taller cabins than most suvs. The physics are pretty clear cut. You have not done your due dilligence and are talking without knowledge of wagons.