Any GTAM'ers own an electric vehicle? | Page 204 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Any GTAM'ers own an electric vehicle?

Hmmm.... Unibody construction and a boxy silhouette I've seen before, especially if you squint at that side profile.

Yep. As per usual,. Honda was ahead of it's time with the first gen Ridgeline billed as a "lifestyle" pick up just as Elon is billing this truck as.

Some pics even depict a 2 wheeler in the back. Just like the Honda promo images from years ago.
 
Last edited:
Oh, the Rivian won't be cheap. This Tesla thing, whatever it is, is subject to Tesla pricing, i.e. here's the price for the base model except we're not going to build those for another year and then we'll cancel it after we've built a couple of them. It won't be cheap in the real world.

This Tesla thing is supposedly built from 3mm stainless steel. Ruff numbers assuming it's only an outer skin which is like that, that's several hundred pounds of stainless steel (not cheap, not light) JUST in the outer skin. Tesla apparently doesn't want to paint these, so that means the unibody structure can't be painted either, that means it's aluminum or stainless steel. Not cheap. Stainless steel in its native form is not easy to keep looking good (see: De Lorean) and if you have a dent ... replace panel, you can't bang it back into shape and maintain the surface finish. If you don't like native stainless-steel silver, pay a couple grand to a wrap shop to wrap it any colour you want. More cost.

Flat (or almost flat) body panels are troublesome. There's a reason outside of styling that modern cars (and light trucks) are all built with stamped compound curves: they're more resistant to bending! Flat panels, or panels with simple curves, are subject to flexing, oil-canning, transmitting road noise, etc. Maybe the outer skin needs to be 3mm thick because of that ...

This would have been SO much better if they had simply used Model 3 / Y design language for the cab and built a bed out back that flowed in from that. Some of the speculative guesses in the lead-up to this event are vastly better looking than the real thing.
 
Hmmm.... Unibody construction and a boxy silhouette I've seen before, especially if you squint at that side profile.

Squint some more. Then maybe a bit more. No, don't stop. Keep squinting.

ux7cr7qaj1h2bkmg56m2.jpg


pontiac-aztek-w-tent.jpg


Funny thing is, I went to Google to get a pic of the Aztek and I got as far as Pontiac Az while typing when Google suggested Pontiac Aztec tent, so I can't be the only one, as Google searches are dynamic.
 
Bold design by Tesla, but i guess it's now got to compete with Rivan designs ... and the Aztek? Good on 'em ... The S3XY lineup is getting tired IMO.

Also, I'm loving the VW EV designs, the new RAV4 looks great and is getting a 39 mile all-electric range. All great things in the EV market.

Not to mention Lincoln changing things up, using electric motors for power instead of mileage/fuel economy concerns. That Aviator is a thing of beauty, and I could totally live with 19 miles of range on a day-to-day basis, especially if I'm getting 600+ torques!
 
Oh, the Rivian won't be cheap. This Tesla thing, whatever it is, is subject to Tesla pricing, i.e. here's the price for the base model except we're not going to build those for another year and then we'll cancel it after we've built a couple of them. It won't be cheap in the real world.

This Tesla thing is supposedly built from 3mm stainless steel. Ruff numbers assuming it's only an outer skin which is like that, that's several hundred pounds of stainless steel (not cheap, not light) JUST in the outer skin. Tesla apparently doesn't want to paint these, so that means the unibody structure can't be painted either, that means it's aluminum or stainless steel. Not cheap. Stainless steel in its native form is not easy to keep looking good (see: De Lorean) and if you have a dent ... replace panel, you can't bang it back into shape and maintain the surface finish. If you don't like native stainless-steel silver, pay a couple grand to a wrap shop to wrap it any colour you want. More cost.

Flat (or almost flat) body panels are troublesome. There's a reason outside of styling that modern cars (and light trucks) are all built with stamped compound curves: they're more resistant to bending! Flat panels, or panels with simple curves, are subject to flexing, oil-canning, transmitting road noise, etc. Maybe the outer skin needs to be 3mm thick because of that ...

This would have been SO much better if they had simply used Model 3 / Y design language for the cab and built a bed out back that flowed in from that. Some of the speculative guesses in the lead-up to this event are vastly better looking than the real thing.

As far as pricing, I'm with you, i think the 40k model will be essentially vaporware. The top model being only 70k was surprising. I figured they would have a halo priced well above the S. Sure, you can add options to drive the price up, but apparently at 70k, you are already getting 2.8 0-60 and 14000 towing so most options will be fluff.

Given their paint issues, I can see why they are trying to avoid it. Given their miserable performance at crash repairs, having panels that cannot be fixed seems like a disaster. Although at 3 to 5 times the thickness of normal body panels, they may eliminate most minor dents and only crashes will hurt the skin (things like stone chips may not dent it, just scuff the surface and you can rebrush it to make them disappear).
 
No frame, useless bed just like the Honda. But then, most "trucks" are not sold for their abilities to do what a truck is designed to do.
 
No frame, useless bed just like the Honda. But then, most "trucks" are not sold for their abilities to do what a truck is designed to do.
Unless you are trying to do a utility bed conversion, why does a frame matter? I know people get upset, but is that rooted in fact or history? A properly designed and built unibody should be at least as strong and durable. Obviously it is a lot harder to design and build a proper unibody than a couple big steel beams and it is harder to see/compare with the competition but if done properly it should be stiffer and lighter.

I would have loved to see them put a much lower bed in. They attempted to ease loading with the air suspension, but nothing beats having a floor that is actually lower.
 
Smack a bumper or fender into a tree or rock with a unibody, and it's usually a big mess. A truck with a frame gets dented.
And what about lift kits? ?
 
Squint some more. Then maybe a bit more. No, don't stop. Keep squinting.

ux7cr7qaj1h2bkmg56m2.jpg


pontiac-aztek-w-tent.jpg


Funny thing is, I went to Google to get a pic of the Aztek and I got as far as Pontiac Az while typing when Google suggested Pontiac Aztec tent, so I can't be the only one, as Google searches are dynamic.

Wow. Didn't know the Aztec was a pick up truck like the Tesla and the Honda.....
 
Smacking a bumper or fender into a tree does the same damage to a bodyshell bolted to a frame as it does to one that's integral with its frame (which is what a unibody is). Front fenders are almost always bolted on nowadays, and bumpers always are. Truck boxes are a bit more of an issue; the bed of a body-and-frame truck is easily unbolted and replaced or repaired if someone is careless with a heavy load; not so much if it's welded into the structure. If they do the design right, the interior of the bed should be protected from damage (with a liner of some sort).

Random thoughts on this Tesla.

I like much of the the "idea". I like the idea of smoothing out the hood and windshield into something closer to a single line (for aerodynamics). I like the idea of an integrated but removable bed cover to smooth out the aero during normal driving but allow it to be removed to carry taller loads, but I don't like the idea of that being glass (or almost all glass). It is going to be *heavy*. (The vehicle as a whole is going to be crazy heavy because of that thick steel outer skin. That heavy skin needs supporting structure that's heavier. And then it all compounds.)

I can't stand the details. I hate the front end styling. I hate the rear end styling. I hate the built-with-a-brake-press sheet metal. I hate the sharply peaked roof (which could have easily been smoothed out). Bumpers are missing. Mirrors are missing. Reflectors are missing. Proper headlights are missing (and thin headlights with not much surface area mean having to emit a ton of light from a small area, which results in a really intense light source, which means ... glare to oncoming drivers).

Taillights across the tailgate means the vehicle needs a redundant set of taillights somewhere that become active if the tailgate is not closed. (See: Chevrolet Bolt, and some Audi CUVs.) There's a reason why most normal trucks and vans have the taillights confined to the stationary parts of the body and not on the tailgate.

No wheel well intrusion into the bed just means they brought the bed sides inward ... less total cargo volume. I certainly use the space around the wheel wells in my van.

The cargo floor is still way high, no different from any other pickup nowadays. They all have that problem. This doesn't solve it.

The range that they're claiming might be possible under ideal circumstances (due to - hopefully - better aero than a standard pickup, although nowhere near what it could be, due to the protruding wheels and sharp roof peak) but take that bed cover off (wrecks aero), or hitch up a trailer, and that range is going to plummet. There is no magic involved here. The range situation when towing will be the same as when TFLcar / TFLtruck (don't recall which - same underlying site) hitched up a trailer behind their Model X: Dismal.

They could have done SO much better. But apparently this thing was developed in about 3 weeks, so there's that ...

The Rivian looks better thought out. Yeah the bed is shorter; biggest market segment with pickups is the full cab and short bed configuration anyhow, so it makes sense to hit that first. Nothing really stops Rivian from making a longer version later ... I don't particularly care for the Rivian's styling, either, but at least it (mostly) isn't objectionable aside from odd headlights.

I am sure Tesla will get plenty of deposits because Tesla.
 
Smacking a bumper or fender into a tree does the same damage to a bodyshell bolted to a frame as it does to one that's integral with its frame (which is what a unibody is). Front fenders are almost always bolted on nowadays, and bumpers always are. Truck boxes are a bit more of an issue; the bed of a body-and-frame truck is easily unbolted and replaced or repaired if someone is careless with a heavy load; not so much if it's welded into the structure. If they do the design right, the interior of the bed should be protected from damage (with a liner of some sort).

Random thoughts on this Tesla.

I like much of the the "idea". I like the idea of smoothing out the hood and windshield into something closer to a single line (for aerodynamics). I like the idea of an integrated but removable bed cover to smooth out the aero during normal driving but allow it to be removed to carry taller loads, but I don't like the idea of that being glass (or almost all glass). It is going to be *heavy*. (The vehicle as a whole is going to be crazy heavy because of that thick steel outer skin. That heavy skin needs supporting structure that's heavier. And then it all compounds.)

I can't stand the details. I hate the front end styling. I hate the rear end styling. I hate the built-with-a-brake-press sheet metal. I hate the sharply peaked roof (which could have easily been smoothed out). Bumpers are missing. Mirrors are missing. Reflectors are missing. Proper headlights are missing (and thin headlights with not much surface area mean having to emit a ton of light from a small area, which results in a really intense light source, which means ... glare to oncoming drivers).

Taillights across the tailgate means the vehicle needs a redundant set of taillights somewhere that become active if the tailgate is not closed. (See: Chevrolet Bolt, and some Audi CUVs.) There's a reason why most normal trucks and vans have the taillights confined to the stationary parts of the body and not on the tailgate.

No wheel well intrusion into the bed just means they brought the bed sides inward ... less total cargo volume. I certainly use the space around the wheel wells in my van.

The cargo floor is still way high, no different from any other pickup nowadays. They all have that problem. This doesn't solve it.

The range that they're claiming might be possible under ideal circumstances (due to - hopefully - better aero than a standard pickup, although nowhere near what it could be, due to the protruding wheels and sharp roof peak) but take that bed cover off (wrecks aero), or hitch up a trailer, and that range is going to plummet. There is no magic involved here. The range situation when towing will be the same as when TFLcar / TFLtruck (don't recall which - same underlying site) hitched up a trailer behind their Model X: Dismal.

They could have done SO much better. But apparently this thing was developed in about 3 weeks, so there's that ...

The Rivian looks better thought out. Yeah the bed is shorter; biggest market segment with pickups is the full cab and short bed configuration anyhow, so it makes sense to hit that first. Nothing really stops Rivian from making a longer version later ... I don't particularly care for the Rivian's styling, either, but at least it (mostly) isn't objectionable aside from odd headlights.

I am sure Tesla will get plenty of deposits because Tesla.
Apparently 57" width of bed. They either pushed the wheels out or down. Nothing says easy to park urban yuppy mobile like having the width of a hummer.
 
Everyone: So you're pretty much finish making things you don't have a clue about?

Elon: Hold my beer.

7wq182y2i8r31.jpg
 

Back
Top Bottom