Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you'd have to be in a bubble to not realize the Cybertruck has some fairly polarizing reactions. I don't think that opinion really ruffles any feathers at all since that's been the case since the debut.
The Rivian R1T's appearance is also polarizing though not quite so much relative to the Cybertruck. To me, it just looks kinda friendly.
The upcoming Chevrolet Silverado EV is also maybe a bit of a departure, but even less so.
Of the major EV trucks out in the US, the Ford Lightning is definitely the most traditional in terms of adhering very closely to its ICE counterpart.
Yeah, I'd agree the F-150 Lightning looks the least weird of all the EV trucks and pickups. I don't like the front LED light on the front of the Lightning, but the Rivian R1T has that same problem.
The Cybertruck is another level of ugly, though. Good I'm not the only one who thinks that way. I will look up the design of the Silverado EV, later.
I think they're both ugly. Why are most of these electric vehicles just not attractive? It makes no sense to me.
I'm used to the Tesla car/suv designs, not ground breaking but normal.
The truck is simply goofy.
Porsche Taycan, BMW I4/I5 look ok, F150 looks fine, even the Hummer EV looks fine. Not in the market but if I was it would have to resemble a good looking car for me to buy one.
That is misleading. Why then can a Tesla Model 3 go 270 to 340 miles on a charge? I haven't seen a ICE that can do that on 2 to 3 gallons of gas!
Yea, it's sort of a dumb talking point that's also technically not true. EVs are just much more efficient overall than internal combustion engines, can recoup some of the energy expenditure whenever it's braking, and doesn't need the engine running in order to run subsystems like climate control, so talking about energy equivalent of a battery pack to gas is not going to be useful.
It's also funny because it's trying to argue something on a technicality when it itself is technically inaccurate. That gallon of fuel doesn't contain that energy alone, but actually needs the ambient oxygen around there, so technically the energy density isn't actually all that impressive since much of the molecular weight in combustion is from the oxygen that's in the ambient air.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
