I think it's actually quite the opposite. If you need a truck for its utility which one makes more sense? The Cybertruck is less expensive, has more range, bigger payload, higher towing capacity, access to the best charging network in the world. Why would you buy a Rivian instead? The only reason I can think of is that it looks more conventional. If you need a truck, you buy the Tesla. If you want a lifestyle truck that looks pretty, you buy the Rivian.

I'm not convinced that the Cybertruck prices Tesla advertised during the unveiling were anything beyond promotional.

Okay fine. As long as we're not believing announcements, then Rivian’s prices are promotional too. And so are the specs. So this conversation is pointless.

Part of me wants to believe Elon et al. at Tesla has a soft-spot for Rivian and - yes - while the Cybertruck could crush Rivian - they want to see Rivian succeed because an EV monopoly over all vehicle classes might mean an own-goal for combating global climate change: competition is important, and the appearance of competition even more-so.

If Tesla's priority was combating global climate change then Tesla would open its chargers to all EVs. Other charging networks charge all EVs (including Tesla cars) whereas Tesla's charging network only charges Teslas.

Tesla's lack of reciprocity is disappointing.

Tesla has said that they are willing to do so, just not for free. I also get the impression that they don't want every slow-charging electric vehicle to have access to their network, and I honestly can't blame them. They have capacity issues as it is, it would be much worse if slow-charging Bolts were able to use it.

Its the early days still, though, so hopefully this will change as Tesla's competitors become more competitive.

Tesla only has capacity problems in North America because they've stuck with a proprietary plug. If they switch to CCS and provide a CCS adapter for older cars then their capacity problems will be solved.

There don't need to be any special deals for them to open their network to other EVs. Tesla can just keep the old proprietary plug on their chargers, add on a CCS plug as well, and get on with it.

Tesla Superchargers in Europe already have CCS plugs because that is what the Model 3 uses here (no idea what connector they use in the US) and it is possible to order an adaptor for CCS from Tesla to be used on the Model S and X; unfortunately it requires a new socket on the car as well so it's not cheap.

So if other manufacturers wanted to use Tesla's chargers they just have to ask Tesla, pay their way, and help expand the network. At least that is what Tesla is rumoured to be willing to do.

> So if other manufacturers wanted to use Tesla's chargers they just have to ask Tesla, pay their way, and help expand the network.

Why does anyone need to ask Tesla anything? What does anyone need to pay?

Tesla can already use other CCS charging networks such as Ionity (https://ionity.eu), FastNed (https://fastnedcharging.com/en/), BP Chargemaster (https://www.bp.com/en_gb/united-kingdom/home/products-and-se...), etc.

Tesla didn't ask them anything. Tesla didn't pay them anything. So when will Tesla reciprocate?

> Why does anyone need to ask Tesla anything? What does anyone need to pay?

The comment is not about Tesla cars using non-Tesla chargers; it is about non-Tesla cars using Tesla chargers.

If other car makers want to use Tesla's network they would have to pay their share of the costs of maintaining and expanding the network.

At the moment Tesla's Superchargers are available only to Tesla cars even though many other cars use Type 2 and they now have CCS connectors. Tesla have several times said that they would consider opening up the system to other manufacturers cars if those manufacturers were willing to pay their share of the costs which most likely would be less than the cost of creating their own network. But, no other manufacturer has taken them up on it.

None of the charging networks you mention were set up by the car makers. Tesla's network is part of the package when you buy a Tesla, or at least it was, and is again, for the S and X. It is a selling point that the chargers just work. They have no user interface, you just plug in and it works. You connect your credit card to your Tesla account and away you go. No need for dozens of apps and RFID cards. Every other charger I have tried to use has been significantly more trouble and often simply would not work. Even those that are free in Tesco supermarket car parks (provided by a consortium that includes VW) need an app on your mobile to get more than 15 minutes of charging.

> they would have to pay their share of the costs of maintaining and expanding the network.

Tesla is not paying other charging networks for the costs of "maintaining and expanding" their networks.

If Tesla's not paying anyone, then why should and why would anyone pay Tesla? This "you must pay us" position is logically inconsistent and hypocritical.

> None of the charging networks you mention were set up by the car makers.

False: https://ionity.eu/en/about.html

> you just plug in and it works.

The CCS equivalent is Plug&Charge (https://www.hubject.com/en/plugcharge-electrify-america/). Even with Tesla's limited charger interface they could support any vehicle with Plug&Charge and any biller.

> False: https://ionity.eu/en/about.html

Thanks. I didn't realize that.

I see people say this online from time to time, but I see very little evidence for it. The Madonna Inn charger was clogged with traffic yesterday, despite it being a massive charger relative to what the other US networks have built. Is there any indication that there are other companies wanting to open up massive charging stations along this route and are simply being held up by Tesla? I can't see evidence of that. It isn't like there are massive waves of EA chargers available along the way.

Granted, the Tesla owners with Chademo adapters often did ok, but that was mostly because so few bothered to buy or use them. The available options would have been just as overwhelmed if more owners used them.

Around here, we are actually have some issues with hotels being hostile towards Tesla owners and Tesla having issues finding properties to place chargers.

> The Madonna Inn charger was clogged with traffic yesterday

You'd plan a different route if there was access to other chargers. There's an EVgo site 5 km from the Madonna Inn. An Electrify America site is going in 19 km from that site.

Electrify America is adding new sites every week at the moment.

EVgo is adding a Tesla plug to their chargers. It's essentially a built-in CHAdeMO adapter. It's dumb having to support three different plugs. The sooner it gets to one plug the better. Europe has taken the correct approach by setting CCS type 2 Combo as the standard plug for all cars and chargers.

> Around here, we are actually have some issues with hotels being hostile towards Tesla owners and Tesla having issues finding properties to place chargers.

All the more reason to spread the work around to multiple companies.

I hope you're wrong but I suspect they're right. If they're accurate I and I think a ton of other people will buy them. The performance per dollar just seems too good to be true.

the problem with the Cybertruck is going to be its size, it's humongous, it's in the same class as a Ford F-250. Going to be hard for a lot of folks to find the space for that behemoth, especially for the people that like to camp but don't have hard core needs like farmers and construction workers. I think Rivian will have the suburban-outdoors people market down pat if they ever manage to actually ship and the car doesn't suck.

It’s in the same weight class as the F250 but it’s roughly the same dimensionally as an F150. Batteries are heavy.

This. Dimensionally, it's almost exactly the same as an F-150. There's no reason to complain about the size.

When it comes to utility design the Rivian is far far ahead.

It's not about more conventional but about more convenient.

One example: you cannot throw stuff in the back of the Tesla from the side.

And when it comes to towing: nobody will use an electric vehicle yet. You can buy a gas truck for half the price with the same towing capacity. A gas truck with the same price as the Tesla will have twice the towing capacity.

What?! Sure it can be more convenient to drop things into the bed, but have you ever tried to get things back out of the bed of a full size pickup? Beds are tall. That's why it's more convenient to store things in the storage room compartments on the side of the Tesla's bed.

Give me another example of how Rivian’s utility design is "far ahead".

Have you seen the side loading compartment o nthe Rivian? Its a pretty cool design...

However - I am interested in neither the rivian and the tesla for their beds -- what I really want is the skateboard from the rivian and the ability to custom build the car I want on it -- if this takes off we can get back to the boutique still car shops of the 20s and earlier.

Have you owned a truck? How often are you throwing things into the bed from the side? What are these things?

Yes, literally all the time.

Sports gear, camping equipment, portable chairs, anything soft that can go on top of other luggage, all go over the side, over the back, however it's most convenient.

More importantly though, is that a lot of this gear is removed from the truck over the side, especially at the beach or on the mountain or at a trailhead, where I'm parallel-parked and can't easily remove items out of the back.

Most people who actually use the bed throw stuff in from the sides all the time.

For over 20 years I have owned various models of F150 Trucks

and I access from the side more often than I use the tailgate.

Infact my current Truck is a Regular bed, and the one before it was a FlairSide ... I miss my FlairSide that is my one big disappointments in Ford that they stopped making Styleside and FlairSide Beds

I haul every day small items, and home improvement supplies, and other things like that

Towing its exactly why I ordered a Cybertruck. Just waiting for confirmation the bed is suitable for "fifth wheel" camping trailer.

Do you mean that you can't throw stuff in the back of the Cybertruck when the bed cover is open? If so, why not?

They’re talking about access from the side.

Since the body of the CyberTruck gradually raises to the roof line, you can’t easily reach into the bed close to the rear window.

no one is thinking about that automatically adjusting suspension. It could lower itself when you get near with your phone, like an elephant kneeling down for you to climb on to it lol

>> truck for its utility which one makes more sense

Anyone that used thier Truck for actual work will tell you the CyberTruck is 100% not practical as a work Truck for many reasons not the least of which is the Bed (or Vault) design.

The CyberTruck seems to appeal to Hipsters and Urbanites that want a "Urban" truck, you are not going to be seeing the CyberTruck on the Farm or Jobsite

Ohh it also appeals to Gen X's that grew up watching 80's SciFi

The only actual reason I have heard is that Cybertruck makes it harder to load from the side.

However I have heard why the utility of the frunk, integrated Ramp, the automatic cover, active suspension and so on would not make up for that.

Right. You tell me which truck you'd rather load boxes and furniture into. https://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/TeslaElectri...

The issue is that the comparison is to the Rivian which only has a 4.5 ft bed. The rear 4.5 feet of the Cybertruck isn't too hard to access, its the front 2 feet that is problematic.

The rivian doesn't have that feature.

For loading furniture, the rear of the Cybertruck is extremely difficult to access, because you can only access it from the rear of the vehicle.

Again, I was comparing to the Rivian. I'm not convinced that the sail sides on the CT are appreciably higher than the Rivian over only the rear 4.5 feet. The Rivian is not a more practical vehicle by any stretch of the imagination.

The Cybertruck can go much lower then most trucks because of active suspension. So clearly the Cybertruck.

OK, list them out. What are the reasons that the design is impractical?

I think the Cybertruck looks like a fantastic SUV, but here would be my critiques of it as a competitor in the pickup truck:

As oft stated, the slope of the bed's walls makes side-loading difficult. This may not seem too significant day-to-day given the bed's volume, but if you're doing commercial work (construction, professional moving, etc), you'll get a lot of items that don't properly fit in the bed's volume. Even the cladding like on the Chevy Avalanche can be obnoxious, if not impossible to work around with some loads.

The body also doesn't look as ammenable to aftermarket modifications as its competitors. Standard racks and bed rails won't be compatible with it, which are pretty much standard mods for any contractor.

On the more elaborate side, you couldn't replace the back end of the vehicle with a domain-oriented work box.

I think a more utility-oriented cybertruck would have gone cab-over like an Isuzu elf, and used a more raditional, if elongated bed-design.

The tonneau cover and specs are nice, but it needs to function more as a modular platform, and have traditional rear end if it wants to compete broadly in the "practical pickup" space.

Great as a lifestyle vehicle, I expect your average truck owner will get more than enough utility from it, and it'll be a dream off-road. But I don't think most of the critiques leveraged against it are being made from the mindset of a consumer who only occasionally needs the pickup portion of their vehicle.

I'm not sure if youve used the average pickup truck in the last 5-6 years but side loading is pointless/impossible because the bed is so high. I am over 6' tall and can't put stuff into the bed of an f150, Silverado, etc without needing to use step rails.

You aren't wrong about that. I've used a couple late-model trucks (Silverados) at various points, but I prefer to early oughties Rangers and F150s for just that reason.

I don't think that the diminished utility of sideloading on modern trucks entirely diminishes the advantages of not having sloped bed walls, however.

the Load to Floor Height of a 2013 F-150 4x4 Crew Cab was ~35 inches, the inside box height was 22.5 inches, so the Bed Height to Ground was ~57in

the Load to Floor Height of a 2019 F-150 4x4 Crew Cab was ~36 inches, the inside box height was 21.4 inches, so the Bed Height to Ground was ~57in

They increased the height of the Truck by 1 in but lowered the depth of the bed by 1 in over the 2 generations of trucks

So how exactly did the last 5-6 years change that much?

I am 6'2" and access the side of my truck just fine

>I am 6'2" Also known as "an unusually tall person"

Which is why I own a F-150 and not a Ranger or Colorado

The point I was responding to was the person implied that Full Sized truck beds have some how gotten taller thus less usable from the side in the last 5-6 years, this is completely false

Tesla could relatively rapidly release a comparable competitor if it becomes obvious they are losing a large market share for certain segment.

I don’t see evidence for that. Tesla has yet to ship a vehicle that didn’t run into production delays.

Rivian has yet to ship a vehicle period.

Likewise Tesla is shipping vehicles from their China factory and Berlin factory construction is beginning.

Model Y is basically a clone of the Model 3 and it's still not out.

You simply can't rapidly make a new car. Years at minimum.

Hence saying "relatively rapidly" - meanwhile other manufacturers are nowhere near creating a vehicle to compete with any Tesla vehicle; if wondering why they're 5+ years ahead of competitors in a dense overview, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uEELWPV8Yc

The F150 is the truck I need, the Rivian is the Truck I want, the Cyber Truck is the truck I laugh at

The F150 is the truck I need, the Rivian is the Truck I want, the Cyber Truck is the truck I will get :) :)