[HN Gopher] The Tesla Semi cab from the practical POV of someone... ___________________________________________________________________ The Tesla Semi cab from the practical POV of someone who drives trucks Author : danso Score : 317 points Date : 2022-12-09 21:19 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | impulser_ wrote: | This seems to be a trend with the latest Telsa future products. | They don't seem to be engineered for the actual user, but | engineered for marketing to people that wont use them. | | The Cybertruck is another example of this. | Havoc wrote: | That makes an alarming amount of sense | redox99 wrote: | Most of these flaws are because Tesla optimized for | efficiency/range/tco, and not actual driver comfort. After all, | the driver is not the one buying the truck. | | They probably figured they wanted that shape for maximum | efficiency. However maybe that narrow shape forced them to go | with the center driver and all the things the author dislikes. | | The logistics of just slapping a couple screens are much simpler | than designing and manufacturing an interior with physical | buttons. | | Also they'll surely plan to drop those mirrors anyway, and use | the screens as mirrors (which solves his cleaning complain, | cheaper truck, more efficient, etc). | justinhj wrote: | There is really no easier path to high engagement on a tweet than | dumping on an Elon venture. Not to discredit his opinion as a | truck driver but I'm pretty sure his mind was made up when he saw | the brand. | Waterluvian wrote: | I love this thread so much. Every issue he mentions is obvious | _once pointed out_. | | This is a great example of something I repeat to myself all the | time, particularly because I find myself surrounded by people who | don't: I might be clever and perceptive but I do not know better | than the user. | steve_adams_86 wrote: | This seems to assume the Tesla semi should meet every demand from | every kind of trucker, but it's simply not meant to and no truck | is perfect for every trip. | | The Tesla semi seems geared towards short haul rather than long. | It's range may sound somewhat long, but I suspect many of these | will "return to dock" in the same day, charging in the same | warehouse yard each day, and if not, within a small network of | warehouses. It's not meant to go interstate and roam far and | wide, charge multiple times, then return to home base. | | Well, maybe it is. I just don't have that impression. If Tesla's | not aware of how impractical that would be then the whole world | is crazy. It seems like they do know though and these are | intended to operate in relatively small networks where conditions | are easier to control and anticipate. | Melatonic wrote: | Lot of these are good points but I think we would really need to | have the guy actually test one of the Tesla trucks to know. The | center position thing, for example, does sound shitty. But how do | we know that the driver could not simply lean to the side | temporarily to reach out the window? That seems like it would not | be THAT hard. | | The tablets though I agree - it is ridiculous that all Tesla | vehicles rely on them so heavily. If that tablet breaks you now | have a fairly useless vehicle. Just lazy design at this point and | dangerous. What they really need is the Saab night mode design - | that was super cool! | fooker wrote: | Until this month, the primary mode of criticizing the Tesla Semi | was demonstrating infeasibility of electric trucks with | misunderstood high school physics. | | Now, it is just about driver convenience. | | What's next? Upholstery perhaps? | fasthands9 wrote: | > And if you really want an electric truck, then just get Nikola, | that uses Iveco Stralis cab, with the design perfected over half | of century | | I honestly didnt know they are still shipping. Their numbers are | very small (under 50 a quarter) which admittedly makes me feel | like the rest of that post has some elements of bias/screed to | it. Is it really a logical alternative to buy an EV truck from a | bespoke manufacturer known for (criminally proven) fraud? | riffraff wrote: | I thought it had been proven beyond doubt Nikola was a scam, | I'm honestly surprised it's still active. | zardo wrote: | I don't know if the whole company was a scam, but they did do | 'a' scam, pretending they had a functioning truck when they | didn't by rolling it down a hill. | faebi wrote: | I do really wonder what the Euro-style Semi will look like. Will | it be complete redesign or will the just replace the cabin? | izzydata wrote: | I wonder how long it will take for this user to be banned from | Twitter. | mlindner wrote: | This reminds me of something like what was written when various | other Tesla models came out with tons of people complaining about | the design, only for them to go on to sell extremely well. | | The vehicle had been in testing with real drivers for years. This | is one of the longest development periods for a new Tesla vehicle | ever. I'm much more likely to trust that over someone on Twitter | who starts his first comment with a clown emoji and makes large | parts of the post about Elon. He won't buy it but plenty others | will. | qwertox wrote: | > Tablets are simply not designed for use in moving vehicles. You | need a physical button, so you can reach for it even without | taking your eyes off the road and feel it. | | This is generally an issue. I really don't understand how car | manufacturers believe that a touchscreen is a good interface in a | car where you often need to look at the road and touch the | controls in order to feel at which button or knob you are. | | I'd rather have high quality resistive touchscreens where the | surface can be touched but a good degree of pressure needs to be | applied in order to execute a command. Ideally it would have some | sort of vibration feedback when I cross a boundary between | buttons. | dools wrote: | Somewhat related is the new Janus electric truck retrofitting | system rolling out now in Australia | https://www.januselectric.com.au/ | henvic wrote: | Not even worth sharing this. Mostly bad takes. | a4isms wrote: | If there are some bad takes in TFA, please list the bad takes | and why they are wrong. That would add value to the | conversation. And frankly, sometimes a wrong essay or rant | makes for a good HN post if it serves to provoke informative | conversation. | | But only if that conversation is informative. So add some | information! | bravetraveler wrote: | At risk of being a hypocrite, this isn't worth posting without | reasoning | | I'm about as ignorant as one could be with this topic and folks | like me would be better served by elaboration or bowing out | cjdoc29 wrote: | I'm a big fan of Tesla. I own their cars. I even own FSD for | each of my cars. But I was not informed on why their new Semi | might be badly designed for the use case they were designed | for. Tesla designs some things stupidly (i.e. they aren't | perfect) - for example, have you ever tried to change the air | filter in a 2019 Model 3? | | Maybe you should support your post with why their take is | invalid. Each of their takes has a reason why they hold their | opinion. | | Yours does not. | spamizbad wrote: | This mirrors some Facebook comments from my trucker buddy that | had a few of the same complaints, although his take was a bit | more optimistic (he thinks Tesla will fix the flaws in an updated | model soon as he doesn't think this will sell.) | jsight wrote: | Yeah, its not as if a cab redesign would be difficult if that | ends up being an obstacle. TBH, though, I'm guessing it works | better in practice than they let on. They've had a few years of | testing, for better or worse. | bombcar wrote: | I really think the difference is going to be long-haul vs | short delivery trucks. | | Also remember the people buying the short-haul delivery | trucks ain't the ones drivin' them. | jsight wrote: | TBH, the Semi was designed with that thought in mind, for | better and worse. I'm sure its a very different market from | the owner operator. | | I can't imagine a single case where this would be practical | for an owner operator at the moment, but I'd love to be | corrected. | johnthuss wrote: | "Drivers sits in the middle. This makes overtaking or looking | ahead more difficult. But also makes it impossible to reach out | of the window to pass the paperwork or to talk with the guy in | the gatehouse when you enter a port or a factory or, say, a | tollbooth." | | This one seems like the worst one of all these criticisms. | pastor_bob wrote: | Do these front windows even roll down? Might be a moot point | [deleted] | KaiserPro wrote: | Its not a problem in the states, but in the EU/country with | cyclists, you'll never see the 20/30 of them that are sneaking | down the inside of you at a junction. | feifan wrote: | The displays have downward-facing cameras covering what looks | like the blind spots next to the cab | ortusdux wrote: | I wonder how this cab design would affect interactions with the | police. I did not realize that you enter via a corridor behind | the driver seat. US officers do not respond well to people | getting out of the vehicle during stops. | mediaman wrote: | True, but I don't think police are as worried about long-haul | truckers behaving well, versus someone in a civilian car. The | trucker needs to keep their CDL, and they do trucking | professionally. | JustSomeNobody wrote: | It's almost as if Musk and his "designers" have never seen a | weigh/inspection station. | toomuchtodo wrote: | I've ridden shotgun through weigh stations and ag inspection | sites (family member is a truck driver). Nothing challenging | about the Tesla design. Lots of weigh in motion installations | replacing weigh stations (where Prepass data is associated | with the weigh observation with no stopping). | | As always, give the market what it'll take, not what HN says. | Electric operating cost savings paves over a lot of minor | issues, or driver complaints. | | https://prepass.com/ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weigh_in_motion | Simon_O_Rourke wrote: | I highly doubt it, but unless it's some crafty scheme to sell | the same cabs to both the UK/Australia/Japan and the USA | without modification. | | Doubt it though, the simplest explanation in this case is | probably design ignorance. | function_seven wrote: | My guess is that they needed to get the drag coefficient down, | and did so by first raking the windshield back, then pinching | the cab horizontally to get some more gains. That narrowing of | the cab then led to the center-seat arrangement? | | Bonus being that you don't need to configure a LHD and RHD | version of this truck for different markets. | eastbound wrote: | Different markets can't be addressed with the same truck | anyway. Lights are different, mandatory equipment is | different, EU trucks are limited cabin-inclusive, US trucks | are cabin-exclusive, etc. | adwww wrote: | Lots and lots of LHD trucks serve the UK making daily cross | channel trips, or even just based here full time from Dutch | / Eastern European shipping firms. | MBCook wrote: | Efficiency seemed like the reason for the tilted windshield | too. | three_seagrass wrote: | LHD/RHD swamp doesn't really matter given that the truck is | probably too long for UK. | | They would still need to swap out headlights anyways. | zizee wrote: | UK is not the only country to drive on the left of the | road, including Australia, India, Indonesia, and Japan. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-_and_right- | hand_traffic | potatochup wrote: | It's possible to have that same hardware headlight and | control distribution patterns/behavior in software | [deleted] | lamontcg wrote: | > This one seems like the worst one of all these criticisms. | | Weird that so many people can't figure out what was meant here. | | I know the literal English is ambiguous but it should be | obvious what was the intended reading. | raldi wrote: | Worst as in most salient or least? | NikolaNovak wrote: | As in, the most damning, or the least relevant? | jjulius wrote: | Most damning. The driver being able to easily lean out the | window to talk to people as it passes tolls, inspection | points, hell, _weigh stations_ , is important. That all of | these engineers and designers massively overlooked such a | vital component of truck driving out of Tesla's own hubris is | hilariously embarrassing, IMO. | newsclues wrote: | All of these factors can have the infrastructure updated to | the 21st century. We don't need coins for tolls, or | paperwork. | mediaman wrote: | That's hilarious. Okay, go tell every warehouse and | factory with a loading dock out there that their systems | are out of date and they need to use RFID for everything. | And if they don't -- well, we won't send this truck to | your facility! | | A little bit of humility when it comes to appreciating | how sectors of the economy you have zero experience with | would go a long way. | labcomputer wrote: | Maybe, but trucking is a low-margin industry. If the | "fuel" savings are even half as big as Tesla claims, | there is going to be a strong incentive to switch to this | truck. | | Suddenly, the warehouses that refuse to switch are paying | more for shipping via ICE truck... that is their choice | of course, but I don't want to hear any whining about how | unfair it is. | rsynnott wrote: | That only really works if Tesla has a monopoly on | electric trucks, though. They do not. | jjulius wrote: | Coins and paperwork will not be gone by the time this | truck is on the market, just as coins and paperwork | aren't the only reasons the seat placement is flawed. | rsynnott wrote: | "This design is fine provided that you change all the | infrastructure in the world" isn't a _great_ argument, | honestly. | macspoofing wrote: | > We can only assume they overlooked it. | | I don't think they overlooked it. I think they designed the | cab to be as aerodynamic as possible, so as to squeeze out | every bit of range they could ... and this dictated the | driver position. | jonathankoren wrote: | So ignored key usability requirements for an arbitrary | product management goal. :thumbs-up: | nine_k wrote: | A microphone and a speaker allows customers to talk to bank | clerks sitting far behind thick bulletproof glass. They | could implement that on a truck. | | Handing papers over is harder, but I wonder if making a | small window that can be opened would be really hard. The | driver would need to stand up, though. | simondotau wrote: | We can only assume they overlooked it. The opinion of | someone who has actually driven a Tesla Semi through a | weigh station would be infinitely more relevant than | anything you, I or the OP have to say. | | And like most things, it's going to be a series of trade- | offs. Perhaps they decided that in a big picture analysis, | the disadvantages are fewer than the advantages. | Alupis wrote: | If you want industry buy-in, you generally need the | industry to be on-board with what you are doing. | | Building some product in a dark warehouse, then thrusting | it onto the industry is a recipe for rejection and | failure. | jjulius wrote: | >The opinion of someone who has actually driven a Tesla | Semi through a weigh station would be infinitely more | relevant than anything you, I or the OP have to say. | | Thank you for quickly dismissing the opinion of someone | who has experience driving semi-trucks and currently | works adjacent to that industry, interacting with truck | drivers on a daily basis. | | I see a massive, massive flaw in this design based on my | own experience but, "Nope, shut up, you haven't driven | the new one, your opinion is invalid". Got it. | simondotau wrote: | I didn't say shut up, and I didn't say your opinion is | invalid. Your opinion is valid. Please stop putting words | in my mouth. All I'm saying is I don't feel there's a | need to come to any conclusions about the design until | we've had feedback from people who have actually used the | product in the real world. I can't believe anyone would | consider this an unreasonable stance. | Alupis wrote: | The most damning in that they obviously didn't consult any | real truck drivers or truck manufacturing companies to figure | out why things are the way they are, before setting out to | try improving them. | | We see this a lot with smart inexperienced developers taking | on entire industries with hopes of "disruption" - but lack | even the most basic understanding of that industry and it's | problems. The hubris necessary to assume everyone in the | industry are dumb and just haven't thought about these novel | improvements is very high... | jsight wrote: | The project was originally lead by the former lead of the | Cascadia program. | Alupis wrote: | Perhaps you are talking about Feightliner's eCascadia | truck? If so, I think we're only making this case | stronger. The eCascadia is a traditional semi, but | electric and a technology improvements here and there. | It's not a "throw everything out and start from scratch" | thing. Perhaps there's a reason he is the former lead... | | The Tesla Semi is a fantasy semi that no one asked for | and I suspect no one will buy. There's plenty of electric | semi's already available... | three_seagrass wrote: | I dunno. I get annoyed just having to unbuckle and get out of | my seat for parking tickets that are out of reach. | | I can't imagine having to do repeatedly do this while | maneuvering a big rig around a stockyard. Or did you mean it | was one of the most valid criticisms? | newsclues wrote: | Good, we can go paperless and minimize human contact and viral | exposure with digital paperwork and authorization systems and | intercoms. No need to roll down the windows and let the climate | controlled air get dirty and hot/cold. | greedo wrote: | You do realize that there are literally thousands of weigh | stations in the US that would need to be upgraded? They're | run individually by the states, who will have minimal | incentive to cooperate. | belval wrote: | Indeed, I wonder if they will be able to address this fast | enough because it does seem serious. Same goes for the mirrors | that are out of reach of the driver for easy cleaning. It could | be a pain point. | | I guess the author wanted the pile-on a bit, but the rest feels | a bit more like "this isn't how we are currently doing it so | it's just wrong", especially when it comes to the shape of the | truck. Being aerodynamic seems like a good way to increase the | range. | nine_k wrote: | Mirrors this big can have sweepers, like the windshield. | S0und wrote: | Valid points until he brought up Nikola as an example. A terrible | example. | MBCook wrote: | Why? | | He only brought it up for the cab shape. Is their cab | problematic as well? | mwint wrote: | Works great as long as your warehouses are all downhill from | eachother. | avgDev wrote: | "Build around driver" - Tesla | | Designed by a tech bro that lives in a city and uses public | transportation, also hates driving. | suzakus wrote: | Loves public transport and hates driving? Not awfully likely in | the US. Our public transport is fairly abysmal outside a few | large cities. | stonogo wrote: | Did you upgrade OP's words from "uses" to "loves" or did | someone edit their comment? | suzakus wrote: | I can't remember now, sorry; I might have upgraded it | mentally as a parallel to his use of the word hates. My | bad! | wilg wrote: | It would be more useful to have the perspective of someone who | actually drives one. When people see a different design it's easy | to come up with lots of ways it's different from what you're used | to but you can't really see which problems have been solved in a | different way than you might assume. | | Plus, it's a day cab so it's not surprising there's no obvious | place for a bed. | | Also, it's strange that someone would think it's a "rich boy's | toy" like rich boys are going to be buying semi trucks for fun. | MBCook wrote: | Every single thing the author said seems like it would apply to | drivers who don't need sleeper cabins, other than the lack of | bed space of course. | littlestymaar wrote: | Elon is the rich boy here. | wilg wrote: | Yes, I understand. But it does not make sense for this to | somehow be a toy for him. | jsight wrote: | It makes even less sense if you watched the presentation. | This was Jerome Guillen and the co-presenter's (Dan | Priestly) toy, if anything. | | Musk seemed barely interested, compared to some past | presentations. | rootusrootus wrote: | It makes sense if you interpret it as a toy he invented, | not a toy for him to drive. Like saying this is just a | vanity project to build something Elon likes the idea of, | but isn't otherwise serious about fitting into the market | it is aimed at. | wilg wrote: | Seems like a strange vanity project then. The new | roadster would be a lot more fun! | rootusrootus wrote: | Not that strange IMO. This is the same guy that wanted | his own boring machine. I don't really have the | impression that he's a sports car guy. | InitialLastName wrote: | Elon Musk's image is built on the prestige of creating | products that fit a specific niche. The entire product is | the toy, not the individual object. | bequanna wrote: | Plenty of "rich" blue collar people in the Midwest have | equipment that is much more expensive/luxurious than would be | required for the job. | | For example, $100k pickup trucks are not necessary for farmers | but still very common. | kortilla wrote: | > For example, $100k pickup trucks are not necessary for | farmers but still very common. | | That's because they also serve as a daily driver, so that's | not a good comparison. | | A pure overpriced utility would be like a luxury combine. | adwww wrote: | Plenty of over-specced tractors on farms too. | Gibbon1 wrote: | Noise I hear from my non media back channels is people that | need trucks for business hate the new trucks. | wilg wrote: | Yeah but it being more luxurious than required doesn't make | it ill-suited for the job. | nluken wrote: | Note that the author of this thread is comparing to European- | style trucks. I am not a trucker so I would be interested to hear | whether American-style trucks have similar flaws, or whether | these are specific to the Tesla Semi. | jjulius wrote: | I work adjacent to truck drivers in the US and can vouch for a | lot of these concerns, _especially_ the placement of the driver | in the center. Being able to easily reach out of the window | easily is _vital_ to that job. | JustSomeNobody wrote: | > I work adjacent to truck drivers in the US... | | Likewise. And you're correct. | rootusrootus wrote: | The first American electric semi has a traditional layout, | driver on the left, normal doors, normal ingress and egress. | About the same as the European truck except it is not a cabover | design and there is a nose in front of the windshield. | pornel wrote: | This sounds very much like a "designed in California" problem. | Who would have thought about mud, frosted mirrors, border | crossings... | anigbrowl wrote: | Maybe 'designed in the Bay Area'. If you take a look at a map | you'll notice that California has significant mountain ranges | and shares a border with Mexico. | sgc wrote: | California is not all sunshine and beaches. They have been | driving them over a mountain pass in the Sierra-Nevada | between Reno and Fremont for years now. They are willfully | ignoring problems, not unaware of them. | jsight wrote: | I'm always a little skeptical of long form complaints that mix | seemingly important things (papers please) with seemingly trivial | preferences (he doesn't like where he'd doff his boots?). Its a | day cab, not a sleeper, so that whole section of complaints is | fairly irrelevant. | | OTOH, he makes some good points about the ergonomics of seat and | door placement. But are these really the things that will drive | or diminish sales? | | Put another way, imagine that you were a truck driver and a day | cab would be sufficient. Now imagine one saved a few dozen $$ per | day in fuel costs. Would you put up with not taking your shoes | off where you want to in exchange for a few dollars? | | These are good insights, but the framing seems a bit hyperbolic. | albertopv wrote: | My father has been a truck driver for about 30 years, Tesla | truck was clearly designed by people knowing nothing about | heavy transport stuff. Papers are still a thing, drivers like | to have a clean cabin, really, but they don't like to waste | time, especially when they have to in and out cabin several | times in few minues. | katmannthree wrote: | Not to be patronizing but it sounds like you don't have much | experience with work boots or jobs that actually need them. If | a driver spends their time going between relatively clean | locations then yes, it's a relatively trivial complaint. The | problem is that's often not the case: If they have to visit | remote, heavy industrial, or some types of farm locations their | boots will constantly end up caked in mud, random chemicals, or | various biological debris. As someone who has dealt with all of | the above, I find the complaint about door placement to be | every bit as big a deal as having to get out of the seat at | guardhouses. | jsight wrote: | Fair enough. TBH, a lot of it is that I just misunderstood | him. I get the concern that this will spread the dirt over a | larger area, including some of the space that really should | have been usable for storage. It looks like a bad tradeoff in | several important ways. | osrec wrote: | Why not just stick to the older, more convenient design? | function_seven wrote: | The older design isn't as aerodynamic. And that's very | important for a battery-powered truck. | jcfrei wrote: | Most of the aerodynamic drag is created by the long | trailer, the front matters comparably little. | epolanski wrote: | Maybe electric trucks are not a good idea yet? | rootusrootus wrote: | Didn't the guy in the video point out that there are | already a few electric European trucks? So we don't even | really need to speculate about efficiency, cabover | design, and all that, we should be able to find real | numbers somewhere. At least pretty soon if not already. | lzaaz wrote: | We shouldn't switch to battery-powered vehicles until they | can replace our current ICE vehicles. | cjdoc29 wrote: | That's short-sighted. It's also possible to create a BEV | that might not replace ICE vehicles for all use cases, | but one that replaces the ICE vehicle in particular | circumstances. | | A BEV fits into my lifestyle. So much so that I think | owning an ICE vehicle would decrease my quality of life. | I don't want to go to a gas station every week. I don't | want to have to take my car in for tune-ups every year. | lzaaz wrote: | >I don't want to go to a gas station every week. | | But... you'd rather charge every time you use it? And | what if you run out of energy in the middle of a trip? | | >I don't want to have to take my car in for tune-ups | every year. | | What makes you think that electric cars don't need tune- | ups? | bagels wrote: | In many cases they can. With the Tesla Semi they can | replace some subset of trucks as well. | draw_down wrote: | tempestn wrote: | That may be, but that's exactly the irritating thing about | Tesla. They make great drivetrains, but then anchor them to all | these "innovations" that most people don't want. These sound | like the truck equivalents of falcon wing doors, yoke steering | wheels and touchscreen HVAC controls. | kodah wrote: | I can't speak from the perspective of a truck driver, but I | drove CAT vehicles in the military in-country. We lived in them | as well. The reason the boots part is important is because if | you're living in a vehicle the dirty parts house a lot of nasty | stuff that will get you sick. To offset that, you pull | everything out of the truck and clean it. If you have to keep | doing this then it adds stressful and exhausting repetitious | work to your work life. If you ignore it you get sick. It's | easier to pick a truck that matches your needs, and frankly, | it's usually the small things that matter in big purchases. | jsight wrote: | Oh, I get it now. This complaint goes back to the whole | sleeper cab problem. Its not a sleeper cab, so | differentiating a dirty section from a clean section like | that seems less important to me. | | I get his point if he doesn't want his dirty boots near his | bed in the back, but that's impossible with this setup | anyway. | mgrthrow wrote: | I love how many comments here are, "I have no domain expertise, | but these seem like nitpicks". | | If a user provides feedback like this, listen. Getting this sort | of detail from a user about design decisions is _invaluable_. | They know the ergonomic setup they need, what works and doesn 't, | and they will have insights a non domain expert simply can't. | osrec wrote: | I actually think this is a very good analysis. A lot of Tesla | vehicles feel like they value form over function. | | What really was interesting for me, was the fact that electric | trucks from more established players exist already, but haven't | really taken off. | | Maybe the Musk x-factor will allow Tesla to sell their truck | where others have failed. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | For the life of me, I can't fathom the EV obsession with | touchscreens. | | Why?! I can understand one touchscreen for complex functions, | but at least retain buttons for core functions. No one wants to | tap five different screens to control the AC direction or wiper | blades. | annexrichmond wrote: | maybe one reason is that it's far cheaper to do touchscreens | than a bunch of individual parts and circuit boards? And EVs | are already pretty expensive and need to be competitive, so | maybe they try to cut costs where they can. | | Add to that, I'm sure some market research is telling them | either touch screens are popular, or that it's not a deal | breaker for most people | maxerickson wrote: | It's not a good reason, but it cuts down on part count and | assembly time (and complexity). | yreg wrote: | Also let's you change the UI at any time after shipping the | product. Basically everything Steve said in the original | iPhone keynote applies. | | Of course there are significant drawbacks as well. | _ph_ wrote: | Depends on hat you consider "function". All Tesla vehicles are | very aerodynamic. That means of course a bit less "practical" | body shapes. Like lower headroom towards the back. So the | question is, do you define functional as the most easy to use | design, or the most efficient design? Efficiency does mean | higher range, which is important for electrical vehicles. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Has nothing to do with the body shape. 2 simple examples: | | 1. I don't think I've heard anyone (who doesn't work at | Tesla) ever say anything positive about the driving yoke. | | 2. Using touch screens for _everything_. Obviously | touchscreens have the benefit of allowing the UI to be | reconfigurable, but other companies have done a much better | job of having important physical buttons /controls where it | makes sense. | jsight wrote: | I watched the yoke thing pretty closely. The positives that | I've heard all center around the turn signals. Apparently a | lot of people get used to them and actually like the touch | buttons! A surprising number prefer them! TBH, this kind of | shocked me, but watching them use it makes it make sense. | | The horn button gets universally negative reviews. The yoke | shape itself is more mixed, but I don't think I've run into | anyone who'd prefer it over a round one. It more mixed | between "I hate it" and "its ok". :) | servercobra wrote: | I haven't read many people who actually have a car with the | yolk have anything negative to say about it. Most of the | comments I've seen are "yeah it was weird to get used to, | now I like it" with a couple "I returned the car". | | Agreed it could use a few physical buttons (but not many, | voice control + the steering wheel controls are the | majority of my usage). They also really need a new lead UI | designer. | rootusrootus wrote: | > A lot of Tesla vehicles feel like they value form over | function. | | As far as I can tell, that would be _all_ of them. And if | rumors are true, Tesla might be about to escalate that to the | next level with their bread-and-butter cars. Brave, or stupid, | ask in a year. | servercobra wrote: | What rumors are you talking about? | rootusrootus wrote: | That they're going to put the yoke on the Model 3/Y and | remove the gear stalk. Like they did on the Model S. | jonathankoren wrote: | Oh god. You can't even turn that wheel all they way | around to park, but hey! F1 is cool, and they don't have | a wheel. | letmevoteplease wrote: | The other electric semis have half the range. | | https://twitter.com/TheEVuniverse/status/1599487909156880384 | rootusrootus wrote: | Due to battery size, or aero? | nephanth wrote: | I mean, a lot of car buyers value form over function | Jonanin wrote: | This may be a well informed take (or not), but it's hard to think | he doesn't have an axe to grind when the first sentence is an | information-free put down ending in a clown emoji. Would love to | see a more neutral analysis. | porphyra wrote: | The cab forward design that OP prefers is so much more sensible | and practical than the "standard" cab design that's so common in | the US. | | The Tesla Semi is more aerodynamic than its peers though. I | wonder how you can improve the aerodynamics without having a | narrow front or sloped windshield. | bombcar wrote: | The most "aerodynamic" shape is a teardrop, with a relatively | flat front end, so they could probably do something with that. | | The "roll down window" thing is relatively easy to solve if | they want to; you either make a seat that can slide to the side | or redesign the front end. | | I expect a redesign of the cab when the truck isn't selling | every single one they can make. | three_seagrass wrote: | Not to mention skirts and tails on the trailer do more to | improve aerodynamics than truck modifications. Still, every | bit counts I guess. | bombcar wrote: | And the only time I see those tails unfurled is when it's | an owner-operator driving at 55 (they know they're getting | paid by the mile and so run as fuel efficient as they can). | rootusrootus wrote: | > make a seat that can slide to the side | | I wonder if that would even be sufficient. The sloped sides | mean that even if the driver can sit directly next to the | window, there's still a hard limit on how close he can get to | whatever he is next to. | modeless wrote: | Yeah he seems to not understand the importance of aerodynamics, | as demonstrated by his complaint that you need extra power to | run the AC because of the sloped windshield. The Tesla Semi | will be consuming around 100 kW at cruising speed. Air | resistance is the largest single contributor to that | consumption. AC is likely to take something like 6 kW even at | the highest setting. I'd bet that even in worst case heat the | difference in AC consumption between vertical and sloped | windshield (1 kW? less?) will be totally swamped by the | improved aerodynamics. And then in the winter extra heat | capture will be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. | | There are some good points in here but there's clearly a strong | bias. | rootusrootus wrote: | > you need extra power to run the AC because of the sloped | windshield | | My impression was the the complaint about the sloped | windshield was primarily about snow; the air conditioning | complaint had more to do with the enormous size. It's a big | glass greenhouse. | modeless wrote: | > "The angled windscreen means [...] cab overheating [...] | You can solve it with A/C of course. Which will use even | more power, shortening your range." | | He is explicitly claiming that the angled windshield will | increase power consumption and shorten range. I think it's | pretty clear that the opposite is true even in the worst | case. | simondotau wrote: | A larger but well insulated cab could have a lower A/C | energy cost than a smaller but less well insulated cab. | | More air volume doesn't dramatically change the energy | footprint when a stable temperature is being held for a | long period of time. With sufficient insulation, the main | consequence will be greater hysteresis, i.e. bringing the | cab to temperature might consume more energy. | faitswulff wrote: | It will increase power consumption if you are using the | AC to melt accumulated ice or snow. | ErikCorry wrote: | The cab-forward design is driven by Europe having a max length | for trucks that includes the tractor, whereas in the US the max | length doesn't include the tractor. | | For this reason I don't expect to see the Tesla Semi in Europe | soon. | Alupis wrote: | Which means more cabin room, which means more comfort for | resting/sleeping/relaxing in addition to driving for folks | that literally live in these vehicles for days or weeks at a | time. | | > For this reason I don't expect to see the Tesla Semi in | Europe soon | | I'm not expecting to see the Tesla Semi in the US soon | either... it's a product in search of a problem. | mrguyorama wrote: | I genuinely had the same thoughts. Just the fact that it was so | clearly different showed that Tesla hadn't even talked to actual | truckers about it. It's significantly more cramped than a roomy | American style cab, and has very little room for the things a | trucker might bring with them. | | Truckers also occasionally bring family with them on some trips, | and this cab makes that kind of thing impossible. | alkonaut wrote: | I agree with the complaints it's not built for/around the driver. | It's built for range. Having a vertical windscreen just isn't | going to be efficient. The window deicing problem is worth | solving to get the range of a streamlined front. The next | iteration of this vehicle will likely solve many of these | complaints (of which some seem poorly designed for no obvious | reason) but I doubt it will ever have a vertical windscreen. | andinaror wrote: | glogla wrote: | It is not interesting just to see that the design is bad, but | that it is getting worse over time. Model S was relatively normal | car. Model X added crazy doors. Model 3 has tablet in the middle | and no physical controls and bunch of other stupid decisions (but | normal doors). The Semi has all these issues. And the Cybertruck | is just entirely plain idiotic as a whole. | | It is as if the Tesla designers (or Musk micromanaging them) are | getting more and more detached from reality. | wilg wrote: | The Model 3/Y have many physical controls and is great to | drive! The doors on the X are pretty silly though. | rootusrootus wrote: | The Model 3 today is alright. Would be significantly better | with auto presenting door handles, a normal latch for the | glovebox, an infrared sensor for rain, and the option to use | old school cruise control. | | The thought that they might do something silly like a yoke | and "automatic" gear selection in the Model 3 is a bit | horrifying. That will push away a lot of the regular folks | who just want their car to be a car. Hell, I'd like to be | able to turn OFF autopilot on my model 3 altogether, because | I'd happily give up lane keeping just for the ability to use | old-school cruise control. | wilg wrote: | The door handles don't bug me, but they do confuse people | the first few times. | | Couldn't care less about the glovebox. I don't keep | anything I regularly use in there and I like that it has a | PIN for secure storage and is otherwise invisible. | | Haven't tried the yoke so who the hell knows. | | I would never want to use cruise control instead of | Autopilot (though it does have it, sort of). I assume by | "old school" you mean not using the Autopilot speed logic? | Sebb767 wrote: | > Model 3 has tablet in the middle and no physical controls and | bunch of other stupid decisions (but normal doors). | | Which is a dealbreaker for me as well, but people seem to | accept and/or like it. The number of orders speak for | themselves and, while I hear a lot of complaints from owners, | the tablet is usually not one of them. | AndrewStephens wrote: | These criticisms all miss the point, assuming that this vehicle | was designed for drivers to use to ship actual goods instead of | investors to view and throw money at. | | I suspect this design is quite good at that. | samwillis wrote: | My expectation is that Teslas real play with the Semi is a long | term plan for self driving trucks. | | It seems to me that "backhaul" routs are the most likely to | benefit from self driving, either with a person on board or not. | Use a self driving truck, where you aren't paying a driver by the | hour. It doesn't need to overtake, can drive at the most | economical speed. It can stick to very well controlled and mapped | routes. Restrict them to certain lanes on the road. Place depots | at the exit/entry points to the backhaul where the cab is swapped | out for one with a driver. | | They may claim this is "designed around the driver", but the | reality is it's designed around (eventually) making the driver | redundant. | | Why design a cab to be optimised to the driver when you plan to | remove them. No, you design around efficiency, that's what they | have done here. | | That's not to say I believe that Tesla will achieve that, or that | this can is well designed. I think it will be companies with a | long history in the industry, understanding of their local | markets, that will do this. | flutas wrote: | > It seems to me that "backhaul" routs are the most likely to | benefit from self driving, either with a person on board or | not. Use a self driving truck, where you aren't paying a driver | by the hour. It doesn't need to overtake, can drive at the most | economical speed. It can stick to very well controlled and | mapped routes. Restrict them to certain lanes on the road. | Place depots at the exit/entry points to the backhaul where the | cab is swapped out for one with a driver. | | Stage one of that is probably "Convoy Mode" as they call it. | | > "Convoy Mode," which optimizes efficiency while allowing | several uncrewed trucks to follow a lead, crewed vehicle. | | https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/16/tesla-semi-has-the-technic... | | NOTE: not talking about feasibility one way or the other, just | mentioning that they have claimed similar goals in the past. | InTheArena wrote: | I'm guessing that this author is European. Just a guess because a | lot of the criticism seem more applicable to Europe, as most of | the complaints are ones that I have heard comparing a European | cab over engine truck versus an American conventional truck. | Also, there tend to be fewer situations where American drivers | need to get out, except at rest stops and weigh stations. Weigh | stations (from what I understand, not an expert in this field) | are automated in the USA, while rest stops require disembarking. | | Cab over versus "Standard" almost always come down to the maximum | length of a truck being determined with the cab in Europe, and | without in the USA. The vastly shorter trip duty length is also a | factor - you get in and out much more frequently in Europe. | simondotau wrote: | I'd be far more interested in hearing thoughts from someone who | has actually driven the Semi. | jedberg wrote: | The Tesla cars have strange things in them too where it seems | like they were designed by people who don't use the cars for | work. | | The prime example being the lack of coat hangers in the car. | People who use their car for work often have to carry dry | cleaning or uniforms or other hanging items in the car. They | eventually made one you can buy as an add on, but it was strange | that it didn't have them. | | Also the whole tablets thing (also mentioned here). The cars have | the same problem -- it's really hard to do anything by touch and | they are always glowing at you. This sucks for everyone but | especially people who use their car for work and most likely are | trying to make a call or do other things they probably shouldn't | be doing while driving. | potatochup wrote: | What the designers/engineers want (convenience, ease of use) is | often sidelined in favor of making money (keeping mfg costs | low, dealing with supply chain issues) | moocow01 wrote: | They do technically have coat hangers in back but they pop out. | bagels wrote: | My Model 3 has coat hanger hooks in it. Maybe only older or | specific ones lack them? | pastor_bob wrote: | "What's the point of these complaints when the driver will be | replaced by FSD in one year" - Elon | rootusrootus wrote: | One hopes that between boondoggles like this, the roadster, | cybertruck, yoke, FSD, not to mention Twitter, that people will | become more skeptical and realistic instead of swallowing | everything Elon says without any critical thought. | themagician wrote: | Tesla knows all this. | | This truck is for a very specific niche: owned fleets near two | warehouses or within a 500 mile round trip from a major port. | Basically: all the warehouses in the Inland Empire near LAX and | Long Beach and the warehouses in the Newark area that service the | NYC metro area. It has the potential to dramatically reduce costs | for some routes/corridors. | | It will be a big hit in these areas. It will have a large impact | on a very specific niche. There's nothing wrong with that. These | aren't going to be used by independent truckers. It's not for | them. It's for drivers making the same 80-100 mile or so trip | from port to warehouse every day. | spoils19 wrote: | Agreed. This Twitter thread just looks like someone trying to | get their 15 minutes of fame by picking a fight with Musk. As | we've been shown over the past few weeks, Elon always comes out | on top. | TheLoafOfBread wrote: | Thread is written by trucker who is making correct points to | a design made in an office, but never consulted with an end | user. | jsight wrote: | TBH, I really wonder if fuel delivery would be a big market | eventually. There seems to be a lot of traffic between near- | urban terminals and urban gas stations that is very inefficient | with diesel semis. | aidenn0 wrote: | Also note that (nearly?) all EU trucks are cab-over-engine | because laws in Europe on the overall length of the truck are | more strict, so you get more cargo for the same LOA vs a | conventional cab. Author of TFA certainly appears to be in | Europe. | jeffbee wrote: | If that's the use case then Tesla has entered the market late | and with an inappropriate solution. You can already buy that | local route electric truck from 4 different legit truck | companies. | elijaht wrote: | I don't see how that is relevant. Nearly all of the criticisms | posed (maybe not the snow one?) would still be relevant to a | driver in the situation you describe. This has nothing to do | with range or even the fact that it's electric | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | While I largely agree with you, there are at least a subset | of the complaints in the Twitter thread that are pretty | inconsequential if the truck is only intended for < 500 mile | routes (for example, the "no space for a bed" complaint). | anigbrowl wrote: | You think that drivers won't be asked to do 3 trips a day, | or that the truck will never break down miles from | anywhere? | kristjansson wrote: | The driver sleeps in the truck in neither of those | scenarios. The driver drives back and forth from the port | until his shift is over, then another driver takes over. | If the truck breaks down ... you're in the middle of Los | Angeles. Someone from the company picks you up, and you | drive another truck, or go home. | | GP's (very reasonable) thesis is that these are for truck | driving as a day-job, in fair-weather locales, which | obviates most of the complaints. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Who cares if they do 3 trips a day, it's not like they | won't need to stop and unload on each trip. Beds-in-cabs | is really only a thing for long haul truckers. There are | tons of vehicles used for trips of the length that the | Tesla Semi is for that don't have beds, and nobody would | expect they would. | lukas099 wrote: | > It has the potential to dramatically reduce costs for some | routes/corridors. | | This alone is extremely relevant. | themagician wrote: | Most of the criticism assumes people will be in these cabs | for 8 hours at a time. They won't. This is for very short | trips. We are talking 80-100 mi each way. 2-3 hrs in each | direction, max. It's not for independent truckers. | another_devy wrote: | Even in this case what advantage it has over existing | electric trucks which don't have these design flaws? | aliswe wrote: | This is my issue. You're replying but clearly you are | missing that there arent any electric semis to compete | with. | | The author of the thread also clearly hasn't ridden a | tesla semi, so he is just assuming that eg the mirrors | can't be cleaned either from the inside nor the outside. | Isnt that a bit too bad of a take? | | I mean I love to read about his experience, but many of | his points of criticism seem hypothetical. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | What existing electric trucks? | mentalpiracy wrote: | Here are four examples for you: | | Mercedes: https://electrek.co/2022/09/19/mercedes-benz- | eactros-longhau... | | Scania: https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/products- | and-services/t... | | Volvo: https://www.volvotrucks.com/en- | en/trucks/alternative-fuels/e... | | DAF: https://www.daf.com/en/about- | daf/sustainability/alternative-... | ojagodzinski wrote: | https://twitter.com/TOrynski/status/1600970796159336449 | TheLoafOfBread wrote: | Mercedes, Volvo, Nikola, Renault. | themagician wrote: | There are no other electric semis. But if you mean diesel | cabs, the answer is operating cost. In an ideal | environment the operating cost of a Tesla Semi is about | 1/3rd (conservative estimate) that of a diesel. | | That environment is, again, very specific. But if your | routes are short and predictable, you have massive | warehouse space for solar, and you can get your average | electricity cost as low as Tesla can then it pays off. 1 | million miles in a diesel is going to cost well over $1 | million dollars (including the price of the cab). With a | Tesla Semi that cost is at least half... IF you can get | the electricity cost low enough. | ffssffss wrote: | There are several other electric semis, the thread lists | their manufacturers at the end. | Chirono wrote: | Yes there are: https://www.volvotrucks.com/en- | en/trucks/alternative-fuels/e... | retromario wrote: | What about the 4 examples of other electric semis shared | at the end of the original thread? | | https://twitter.com/TOrynski/status/1600970796159336449 | eastof wrote: | TFA references several competing electric truck makers | such as https://nikolamotor.com/tre-bev | jackmott42 wrote: | The central seating position issues become less relevant for | this use case. | rsynnott wrote: | > It's for drivers making the same 80-100 mile or so trip from | port to warehouse every day. | | Why the range, then? Surely something lower-range (and thus | cheaper) would be preferable there. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | It sounds like Tesla has a lot to prove to skeptical | truckers, so a big number on range can head off some | criticism. | | I think what people are saying is that there are a lot of | 80-100 mile trips that this can serve, where the criticisms | aren't really a big issue. But more range still means | expanded use cases. | TylerE wrote: | Trucks tend to have lots of idle time - truckers like their | comms and climate control to work while they're waiting to | get loaded, for one. | | Also, you might have a local truck used in more than one back | to back shift. | epolanski wrote: | I'm not following, how would it reduce costs over different | trucks? | feifan wrote: | Cost-per-mile is cheaper from electricity than from diesel, | and it's expected to have lower maintenance costs too (fewer | moving parts, no oil changes, etc) | epolanski wrote: | > Cost-per-mile is cheaper from electricity than from | diesel | | Depends where. | | > and it's expected to have lower maintenance costs too | | That's theory. Compare maintenance costs of a Tesla and any | hybrid Toyota. | foobazgt wrote: | It's been almost four years for me, and I've had to spend | exactly $0 in maintenance on my Model 3. We'll see what | the future holds, but not bad so far. | themagician wrote: | The cost per mile will be radically lower IF (big if) | customers can actually achieve the wholesale electric rates | that Tesla estimates are possible. Like, dramatically lower. | The cost of diesel over 1 million miles is going to be north | of $600k easily. At Elon's "guaranteed" 7C//kwh the cost to | run a Tesla Semi over the same mileage is about 1/3rd. | | This truck is designed to be an efficient workhorse for short | routes with owned fleets. | epolanski wrote: | Electricity cost is much higher in the US and almost 10 | times more expensive in Europe. | | Also, a diesel engine can easily run millions of miles, I | don't believe a battery's efficiency would hold even few | hundred thousands. Teslas don't at least and degrade around | 10% every 100k miles, with most dying before hitting 400k. | | Like everything those calculations seem always based on | best case scenarios and ignore that batteries are super | expensive and degrade at each cycle. | themagician wrote: | Hence the big "IF". | | Still, some companies will be able to realize the gains. | They can invest in solar on site. The people purchasing | these often have warehouses with 1,000,000 sq ft of roof | space. | maxerickson wrote: | My residential retail electricity is 0.098 per kw-h. | Midwest prices are generally decent, but the town is | buying from ~1 large utility to get that rate, with a few | solar panels perhaps lowering costs some of the time. | Seems like there is room to do better just going to | market, and there is certainly room to do better by | buying directly from new solar installed in the next few | years. | ribosometronome wrote: | > Elon's "guaranteed" 7C//kwh | | Can somebody say more about this? I'm struggling with | finding more info on it. | | Further up, folk were talking about this being useful near | LA in and in CA ... but the price of electricity is well | above that here. | s1artibartfast wrote: | You may be thinking of residential rates which are many | times higher | simondotau wrote: | > how would it reduce costs | | https://youtu.be/BiJ45_hXJe0?t=69 | jeffbee wrote: | Doesn't that work out to like 2C/ per ton-mile??? Don't | confuse yourself by only looking at the numerator. It | probably costs close to $100k to refuel a train. | anigbrowl wrote: | Besides the fact that other electric trucks already exist, I | question the roadworthiness of a design that doesn't have any | instrumentation directly in front of the driver (like a | speedometer...) and that puts the driver several paces and a | corner away from a door, which seems like a distinct | disadvantage in the event of a crash or a fire. | quonn wrote: | There is really no difference if the speedometer is in front | (actually below) or to the right. In both cases your eyes | have to refocus. I tried both. It's a non-issue in the Model | 3/Y. | alistairSH wrote: | Still can't hand papers out the window, which happens to all | trucks (weigh stations aren't optional, etc). | | Still getting mud all over the inside with the door behind the | seat. Even if you aren't sleeping in it, you're spending time | there. | themagician wrote: | Minor inconvenience. Pepsi doesn't care how you hand papers | to someone. FedEx doesn't care if you get mud in the cab, | you'll just have to clean it after your shift. | | This is the kind of efficiency tool that will be bought by | large corporations and forced on drivers. | nyrikki wrote: | You still have to look over you shoulder when merging and | need the ability to shift your body to see in the mirror or | to check where your tire is when backing up. | | I get that lots of car drivers merge by faith, but you kill | people and potentially spend time in jail in a CMV. | | Local deliveries are far more dependant on this than OTR, | and even the drivers of front discharge cement trucks with | narrow cabs complain about this. | themagician wrote: | Sucks to have to drive this then. | | If Pepsi believes it can cut its transport costs for | certain routes by 20% it doesn't care how inconvenienced | or annoyed you are. | soheil wrote: | Driver in the middle gives better visibility and command and | control of the road. I don't understand the negativity here when | the guy presumably a truck driver's tweet 1. ends up on top of | hacker news! 2. complains about something he hasn't test driven | or experienced. | | Look at McLaren F1 driver seating position [1] probably the best | car ever made in terms of maneuverability, control and command of | the road. | | I can't stop wondering if these are coordinated attacks on Musk, | let's give the truck a chance before piling on. If other Tesla | cars are a guide it will be a game changer. | | [1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic- | cars/a12019... | a4isms wrote: | I am not a trucker, so I can't comment on the veracity of TFA's | claims. But this rant reminds me of many similar things I've read | about products that were designed by people only had superficial | experience with the industry they are trying to disrupt. | | A lot of the things that matter aren't necessarily obvious to the | designer or engineer who knows little about the nuts and bolts of | every field. The usual remedy is to either follow a design | process that incorporates user viewpoints, or to hire people with | direct experience in the field. | | Take the "wiping the mirrors" complaint. One design makes it easy | to lean out the window and wipe the mirror by hand. Another | design might make the mirrors retractible. | | If I read a complain that retracting the mirrors was unnecessary | complexity, I would think "Hmm, maybe, but then again it's a | tradeoff because the narrow cab is more aero and increases | range." I'd have a feeling that the designers knew this was an | important use case, but this person complaining doesn't like | their solution. | | But it worries me that a number of use cases that seem quite | obviously common even to a layperson... Are neglected outright. I | don't get the impression that Tesla knew about all this and | decided not to do anything about them, I get the impression that | this is a company who thinks "design" is all about styling, and | not about usability. | | Somebody resurrect Steve Jobs. | jsight wrote: | Considering that the original lead for the project was also the | lead for the Cascadia, I don't think its fair to say that they | lacked people with industry knowledge. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | Devil's advocate: the buyer and operator of the trucks may not | care what the driver thinks. Most of these complaints don't | seem to hit at the truck's profitability for its target market. | neither_color wrote: | If anything it reminds me of all the arguments on slashdot when | iPhone was announced that it would never take off because full | touchscreen phones without a physical keyboard were a gimmick. | makeitdouble wrote: | But then we also had the cybertruck that seems stuck because | of its design, or the hyperloop. It wouldn't be Elon's first | dumb idea. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Is the difference here is there is already long running | expectations? The iPhone was charting a brand new course | across undiscovered seas, how trucks drivers interact with | their vehicle is an experience with literally generations of | data. | TylerE wrote: | Slashdot is the Jim Cramer of tech. ("No wireless. Less space | than a Nomad. Lame"). | imperialdrive wrote: | Heck, even most of what Microsoft designs/builds/releases is | after-the-fact mind boggling un-user-friendly, and they are | mostly working on their own and hugely deployed products with | many years of real world experience already under their belt. | And they still screw it up regularly! I don't readily know what | one would call this phenomenon. Is it as serious as technical | cancer? Dementia? If feels like a disease that is spreading to | so many companies rather far, and fast. Perhaps the good news | is that it _should_ result in more competition, I think. Tall | growth getting hit with beetles, ideally leaving behind fertile | ground for something else? | blagie wrote: | My general design process: | | 1. Design it myself. Get my ideas on paper before I'm biased. | | 2. Review designs. See how other people did it. | | 3. Talk to experts. | | 4. Integrate ideas and build it. | | Most of my clever ideas turn out to be dumb at step #2 or #3, | but a few pan out, and those have been important. In many | cases, there is some kind of fusion too. | | It seems someone missed steps 2-4 here. | V__ wrote: | That sounds intriguing. Can you talk about some success (and | failures)? | reaperducer wrote: | _this rant reminds me of many similar things I 've read about | products that were designed by people only had superficial | experience with the industry they are trying to disrupt._ | | I've had similar experience with silly old web development. | | I spent a week sitting down with actual users of the web site | that I was so proud of and watched them use it. Oh, man did | that hurt. | | All the "telemetry" in the world will never prepare you for | actually watching real people at work and talking to them. | | It completely changed the way I build web sites. | | The Tesla designers should spend more time in truck cabs, | shadowing actual truckers. Based on this Twitter rant, it | should be illuminating. | Eji1700 wrote: | To me, this point alone continues to highlight that musk is | just focusing on looks instead of function- | | > Tablets. I drove a modern Mercedes truck with tablets and | it's pin in the arse. Tablets are simply not designed for use | in moving vehicles. You need a physical button, so you can | reach for it even without taking your eyes off the road and | feel it. (10) | | This is a KNOWN issue. There's very very little upside to any | sort of touchscreen in a moving vehicle. And while in normal | cars they move units because features over functionality is | acceptable, trucks aren't status symbols first. They do, at the | end of the day, have to do the job they're designed for | efficiently, and things like this are clearly just "trendy" not | practical. | powvans wrote: | Not just efficiently, _safely_. | andrepd wrote: | Cars kill 1,500,000 people per year (= a 787 full of | passangers every couple hours). What's the big deal about | safety? /s | crooked-v wrote: | The reason for the touchscreens is simple... compared to all | the design and manufacturing needed for a good console of | buttons, it's cheap just to slap in an identical tablet unit | in every car model. | | From the very start it was just Tesla penny-pinching. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | I'm not a designer but one principle I've adopted in most | things I purchase is to minimize complexity. My goal is always | to optimize for "least willpower consumed". Because I know that | if its not easy to do, I'll just skip it after a long day. | | If I was making something for professionals who might use the | tool for long, tiring hours, I'd probably want to give them the | least bit of complexity possible. At the end of an 8 hour | shift, how many truckers will have the energy (or rather, spare | willpower) to press a button, wait for the mirrors to retract, | clean it, and press the button to get it back into its original | position? Compare that to the much simpler single-step current | process (grab cloth, clean mirror). | | The fewer clicks, the fewer steps, the fewer movements | something takes, usually, the better. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-09 23:00 UTC)