Talk:Tesla Cybertruck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Back from 2015, possible very early mule:

  • Smith, Mike (2015-07-01). Tesla Van Spotted. Newark, California – via Youtube. Tesla… What the hell?

Sladen (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Just in case… it's needed later on:

  • Musk, Elon (2019-06-11). Tesla Annual Shareholders Meeting. [Musk] a car that can go in the water basically? [Questioner] On, or under, or both, the water? [Musk] It's funny you should mention that … if you make it a big bigger then you can actually have a submarine car. It's like technically possible. I think the market for this will be small; small but enthusiastic. So… we do actually have a design for a submarine car.

Sladen (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Six hours later…:
Sladen (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Units of measure[edit]

I am proposing that we use imperial units as the main UOM's for this article, as that is what is provided by Tesla. Metirc units should be included in (parenthesis). -- (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The dimensions/engineering units appear to be metric originals; approximated for the US-market, to imperial hence the use of |order=flip to display metric units (+ imperial approximation). For example; 6.5ft bed is 2 metres (±<9 mm). Headline 250/300/500-mile range targets are 400/500/800 kilometres (±<8 km). —Sladen (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Sladen, many of the units seem to be metric in original, so using the metric units leading the conversions in other unit systems seems most appropriate. N2e (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No automobile manufacturer of note uses imperial units anymore. Imperial units pretty much disappeared from the automotive industry by 1985, over 35 years ago. Trying to roll the calendar back in this respect is pointless and ridiculous. (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems so - "the automobile industry changed long ago to reap the benefits of a single measurement system" (Ford/GM). TGCP (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Launch event[edit]

The timeline section needs updating to include the November 2019 launch event, 100$ deposit waiting list and Tesla Cyberquad optional extra. -- (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


English is not my primary language so I am wondering. Are sentences such as "Tesla is accepting pre-orders for the $7,000 'full self-driving' option" realy neutral? Wouldn't a simpler "Tesla's 'full self-driving' option pre-orders cost $7,000" or "... is offering 'full self-driving' option pre-orders at $7,000" or something along the line better?

Or ist that a normal phrasing in the US these days ... that companies are not selling products anymore but are graciously accepting pleas for taking the money (in this case for something to come in the future... hopefully) of the custo... err ... applicant?--Soulman (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Tesla Network[edit]

In response to the request to clarify the following point: Tesla Networks[clarification needed]

1. there is a typo, Tesla Network is singular. 2. Tesla Network is a component of the Elon Musk'Master Plan Part Deux, 2016, quoted in the rest of the sentence in the article 3. Tesla Network is the possibility of vehicles to be rented for money, which is used by Musk to justify that there will be no cheap versions of the vehicles, since the lower-middle class wanting a Tesla would make money out of it and pay for the price differential from what else it would have been purchased. 5. This feature, which hinges on a bundle of hardware and software capabilities, will be available worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logico1950 (talkcontribs) 10:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Logico1950 for making those changes to the article prose. I think the concept of a Tesla Network is now adequately clear for the typical reader of this article. N2e (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


Can someone upload the Cybertruck logo? The {{PD-textlogo}} is an embedded CSS Base64 encoded SVG at http:// It would be good to have the punk Cybertruck logo here. -- (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So it is available at File:Cybertrucklogo.svg -- (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


File:TeslaCybertruckUnveil.jpg has been removed from the infobox by someone, so a bot has picked it up as an unused NFUR image, and it is now up for deletion. -- (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

That's because it did not satisfy WP:NFCC#1. Prototypes of the truck exist and have been shown publicly, so free equivalents could exist or be created. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Long cargo loading[edit]

The article makes two conflicting claims: "The rear middle seat also folds down to allow loading long cargo extending into the cab from the vault" in section "interior" and "One article claims that there is a pass-through to the cabin for long cargo,[56] but this is doubtful, as the displayed prototype lacks any corresponding opening in the front of the bed." in section "Vault (bed)". Either the seat folds down and creates the opening or it doesn't. If somebody knows which of these claims is true, the false one should be removed.--2003:F6:FF35:4F00:30E3:431F:E85D:35A0 (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The rear seats fold down, but it still just a wall there: the rolling vault cover travels down the outside of the rear cabin wall. It may be possible to have a pass-through from the sail-pillar toolboxes (beyond the width of the sliding vault cover). —Sladen (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Saw this today. Not much firm, but its in the area you are wondering about. N2e (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Which image should we use?[edit]

I suppose I better get a consensus before an edit war breaks out. The subsequent images are modifications of the first one. The original looks a lot nicer, but the modified versions are easier to see. The original author of the image prefers the first one, as he's said the edit "looks like absolute garbage"... anyone else have an opinion on this? Saucy[talkcontribs] 04:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The light thumbnail is better than the dark; the aft third of the dark thumbnail is almost invisible. So for the article, the light (edited) is better.
However, for a screen sized image, the dark photo (original) is better; the aft is now sufficiently visible, and the light is grainy due to enhanced image noise. Is there a way to use the light thumbnail in the infobox, but linking to the dark original for bigger images? TGCP (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: difficult question:
    1. original is a better photograph.
    2. might be better for a quick-glance thumbnail, but ends up being silver-grey car against silvery-grey backdrop.
    3. has the potential to be useful, but at the moment is so tightly cropped that there is no context about what is car and what is not car (in particular, too tightly cropped on the left/rear).
  • With no clear improvement/benefit with the modified versions, tempted to suggest that we might as well keep the original photograph in the mean-time? At least readers then have a quick way to get to the full-size photograph. —Sladen (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Image 1 as of now. It's the best image of the three. The other two have a cheap whitewashed feel about them. It's a good idea to lighten the first image, but not if it looks like those 2.HAL333 19:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Which size do you mean - a thumbnail for the infobox, or as a full-screen image? Does anyone see a sharpness difference between the thumbnails? TGCP (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 1 as it is the best representation of the truck and it is an official photo taken. Cook907 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Since someone suggested lightening image 1 but without making it look like 2 and 3, may I suggest image 4? It's an attempt to make image 1 a bit more palatable for people with monitors like mine. For me, the original image is too dark even as a full size image. And I'm probably not the only one. Tell me what you think. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Image 2 While its lower quality, I think image 2 shows off the truck the best, which is the intended purpose. I would vote any of the edits though over the original because the original is very difficult to see on most monitors, and the #1 purpose of an image on Wikipedia is to show off the subject matter, which the original doesn't really do. TKOIII (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 3 - Lightened and cropped shows the vehicle best, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 1 - Looks the best; the brightened ones seem to have a cheap, washed-out feel to them. Some1 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 3 - The purpose of the original image was to be artistic, and it achieves it well. However, the purpose of Wikipedia is to actually show the truck, and this is best achieved by Image 3 (or 2, the difference is too small). Tercer (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 3 with that image , you can see all of the truck. Image 1 hardly shows anything! . By the way, image 3 also looks great full screen on my monitor. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 1 or 4. The other images look dirty. The caption said that this was the truck during the unveiling. There was no artifice in the original image. It was just how it looked with the contrived lighting on stage during the presentation. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As the person who put up this question, I'm gonna vote for Image 4. It's a decent compromise, as you can see the truck better without making the image look too ugly or washed out. Anyways, I think I'll try to get some more people to vote, this RfC has gone on long enough. Saucy[talkcontribs] 08:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Image 3 Image 1 is unusable. You can't see a thing. Image 2 is better, but there are distracting things in the background. The cropped and lightened version focuses in on the truck and makes it pop. Also 3 is the most accessible version, images 1 and 4 are gonna be real hard to see if you're visually impaired or have a bad monitor. Do note that I came here after Saucy mentioned this on Discord, though that hasn't affected my vote, merely my presence. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Image 3 (or 2). The others are too dark. Cropped looks better in my opinion. Majavah (t/c) 15:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: on Commons, these should appropriately be linked to one another using Commons:Template:Derivative works & Commons:Template:Derived from. Currently, they are not. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Image 3: The original image is so dark that it is almost useless. It is so dark that the signal to noise ratio is very bad. Which means that any attempt to lighten it will magnify both the signal (what we want to see) and the noise (the grainy specks that we don't want). So the best we can do is to slide the gain up until we see too much noise and then back it down a bit. I tried this myself and even played with some different gamma curves to concentrate mostly in the dark areas. My best effort was very close to image 3.  Stepho  talk  02:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems that Image 2 or 3 has a small majority, but no clear consensus. There are no other free images available through a Google image search. But there are probably good photos taken that have not yet been tagged as free - perhaps some of you with good online connections to Reddit, TMforum, Twitter etc. can request better photos to be made free? TGCP (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Similar car designs[edit]

Per Popular Mechanics [1] Wedge shaped cars; Perhaps some of them as see alsos?

-- (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Depends on whether you mean a curved wedge (eg Stratos) or a flat sided wedge (eg Lotus Esprit). And those examples are all cars, not pickups. The Toyota Kijang#F10 can give it a run for its money for flat sidedness but I wouldn't necessarily link them.  Stepho  talk  12:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Elon himself said inspired by Blade Runner cars and his Lotus Esprit -- neither of which are trucks. So flat wedged cars would be stylisticaly similar, and ones which the press already compare the Cybertruck to (ie. DeLorean, Countach, Esprit; several 80s post-apocalyptic movie cars; several 70s wedge electric minicars) -- (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)