How unsafe is it? I’ve not seen any crash test results.
Comment on Some Tesla engineers secretly started designing a Cybertruck alternative because they 'hated' it
angrystego@lemmy.world 9 months ago
So both the engineers and everyone in the comments is just saying they hate/like the look of it? That’s the last important part. As I understand it, the Cybertruck is never going to be allowed to the roads in Europe because of how unsafe it is. That’s what people should be interested in. Looks can be pleasing to some and ugly to others and that’s ok.
Thorndike@lemmy.world 9 months ago
doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
Afaik they haven’t done any crash testing yet, or haven’t released the results. The EU tends not to allow cars with sharp, angular front ends. Iirc that’s why the latest Camaro can’t be sold in swathes of Europe.
WhipTheLlama@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Why are people so convinced that the Cybertruck won’t be safe? Of all the bad things we can say about Tesla, it’s a fact that they’re quite safe vehicles. I see no reason why the company would suddenly build a vehicle that is so unsafe it cannot be sold in Europe. Some comments in this thread say it doesn’t have any crumple zones. How strong do you think 3mm stainless steel is? The strength of every vehicle comes from its frame, not from its body panels. Same thing with the Cybertruck.
Trashboat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
Safety isn’t just about the driver though, you also have to think about what happens when they hit pedestrians or other cars. I gotta say, there’s a lot of vehicles I’d much rather be hit by than this if I had a choice
WhipTheLlama@lemmy.world 9 months ago
There are also pedestrian safety laws. I’m not convinced that the Cybertruck is less safe than any other similar-sized pickup truck. If anything, the nose is a bit lower, so it’d let a pedestrian fall on the hood more than if they were hit by another truck.
Either way, the stainless steel isn’t going to be a factor, and the pickup market is flooded with vehicles that are less safe for pedestrians than lower cars.
Sylvartas@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’ve been wondering about its crumple zones. So… does it not have any ?
ivenoidea@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The other car is the crumple zone.
assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I wonder how much the other car’s crumple zone affects the performance of your own. I wouldn’t be surprised if one car not having one would degrade the performance of the one that does.
In which case, these cars actually become a public safety risk.
Natanael@slrpnk.net 9 months ago
The crumple zone absorbs kinetic energy / momentum and allows a smoother and slower deceleration for the passengers as the energy transfer of the impact gets drawn out over time. The suddenness of crashes is what causes the greatest injuries, so you want it to be less sudden.
If both cars have equally performing crumple zones then both zones contribute equally to this “jerk reduction” (a rapid change in acceleration is called jerk), but if only one has it then you only get half as good reduction and the slowdown will be more sudden.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 9 months ago
So the pedestrians are as well?
karmiclychee@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Airbags
kameecoding@lemmy.world 9 months ago
the bodies of children it’s software won’t detect will have plenty of crumple zones, don’t see what’s the issue
Fedizen@lemmy.world 9 months ago
the thing is a giant slab of angled metal, when it crashes into things my guess is the hood will slide backwards and “dissect” entire people.
Lev_Astov@lemmy.world 9 months ago
That’s a threat with most vehicles and is easily engineered for. Aside from visibility problems, we can’t know what real safety issues it might have until we get crash test data.