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