Yikes, even Rivians are having similar issues, so this isn’t exclusive to these shitty trucks. Guess weighing 7,000+ LBs isn’t great for daily commuting, who’da thunk. I hate America’s obsession with huge trucks as their daily drivers. Whatever happened to smaller Ford Ranger type trucks? That way you still have the convenience of a truck when needed without the utter waste that the big ass trucks create for city driving.
Whatever happened to smaller Ford Ranger type trucks?
I could be wrong, but I heard it was emission regulations that happened.
As the emission standards became stricter, the truck manufacturers started producing bigger trucks as they had more lax emission requirements.
Fuel efficiency standards are more relaxed for a vehicle with a larger “footprint”. So that incentivizes larger vehicles because it’s easier to pass MPG standards.
You’re right. But it’s more that emissions standards didn’t happen.
Cars got them while trucks got them much, much less. So they build more trucks and fewer cars.
They should just have a road tax based on weight and an emissions tax based on emissions. Not emissions per class twice removed just CO2 per mile. All vehicles.
Roads get maintained by the weight tax, emissions tax to fund decarbonisation of the economy.
But instead they’re charging me an extra $100 to renew my tags for my hybrid sedan. If i had a full electric, it would be $200 extra.
Gas vehicles pay that as taxes on gas, hybrid and electric cars put more wear on the roads due to their weight so it’s only fair that owners would pay for road maintenance as well.
I understand that, and i have no problem paying my fair share as a driver. But it’s a hybrid and thus I still do buy gas. On top of that, I work from home and really just don’t drive that much, so that makes it feel especially unfair for me since the new fee is not usage-based like the gas tax. Regarding the weight argument, most of the huge trucks and giant SUVs I see driving around here weight around a literal ton more than my car (sure they also get shit gas milage, but that’s something they knew when they bought the damn things). I also looked up the weight for the ICE version of my car and the hybrid weights less than 100lbs more.
It wouldn’t bother me so much if they had ear-marked some or most of the funds towards charging stations, improving roadways with bike and pedestrian safety in mind, and public transport initiatives, but as it stands, it sure feels like i’m being forced to subsidize road damage from gas-guzzling toddler smashers.
As you said, those huge trucks burn more gas therefore they put more money into road maintenance, your car weights the same as a much bigger car while getting better mileage so there needs to be some form of compensation and unless you want the government to come and check your mileage every year to charge you a fee then it’s a flat rate, which you should have known about before buying your car.
Actually, the law was passed a full two years after i purchased my car. And they could have easily checked my milage when i took my car in for emissions testing.
It’s partially that, the fact that instead of making the trucks more efficient they made them larger to skirt the regulation, but another factor is the profitability of larger trucks. It doesn’t cost them that much more to make a massive truck vs a reasonable vehicle but the target market for unnecessarily large trucks is willing to pay hand over fist for them and so the manufacturers and distributors make more money per sale by a large margin.
So when you see a large truck, don’t just think “someone who’s compensating” but also think “someone who got fleeced”.
The roads would be safer without massive trucks, no one should be above ridicule.
Just to be clear, small trucks weren’t good on gas either (I would know, I’ve had a bunch of them) and we’re at the point where full sized trucks and mid sized trucks get pretty much the same fuel economy. The shape of the vehicle is bad for fuel economy, it’s that simple…
I could get 25 mpg average with my old ass stick ranger regularly going 75+ mph.
You’re luck to average 19 mpg on a flat highway going 55-65.
The modern Ford ranger is the same size as the F-150 from 2004.
Now if you want to buy a Ford ranger size truck you have to buy the Ford Maverick, which costs ~$35,000.
It’s fucking madness and I don’t know a single company that hasn’t lost the plot.
Tbf I bought a new GTI in 2017 for 22k. I just checked and 2024 MSRP is 33k.
If you look from the 90s to today car price inflation is lower than general inflation
I only have anecdotal data but that doesn’t line up with my experience… But you might also be right.
In 2004 I bought a new Honda Civic (base trim) for $13k USD. Adjusted for inflation that’s about 22.5k. Starting MSRP for a 2024 civic is apparently $24k so it’s not too far off. If you factor in what you actually get, most new cars have backup cameras, sensors, collision avoidance, blind spot monitoring, better safety and presumably better handling and power deliver and efficiency. It’s not that bad of a deal I suppose.
My main hangup is the amount of dollars because my salary sure as shit hasn’t doubled since 2004.
The modern Ford ranger is the same size as the F-150 from 2004.
Not if you’re actually honest and compare trucks with the same features (4 doors, similar bed length).
Trucks are mostly higher than they were before, but their width and length hasn’t increased as much as some people think as long as we compare trucks with the same features
2004 F150 crew cab, 5.5’ bed:
- Length: 224"
- Height: 73.5"
- Width: 78.9"
2023 Ford Ranger crew cab 6’ bed:
- Length: 210.8" (-13.2")
- Height: 71.5" (-2")
- Width: 73.3" (-5.6")
Are you telling me that 4 doors are longer than 2 doors?
Crazy right? Who would have thought that a mid size truck with four doors and a 6’ bed would be longer than a full size truck with two doors and a 6’ bed?
Yeah right pal, what’s next- 6.5 is longer than 5.5?
What’s funny is that the Ranger with the 6’ bed is still more than a foot shorter than the 20 years old F150 crew cab with the 5.5’ bed, so as I said, when you compare the two with the same features, the 20 years old F150 is bigger, people look at 4 doors mid size and compare them to regular cab short bed full size trucks and come to stupid conclusions…
Or - hear me Out - don’t drive a Truck at all. It’s easy, just drive a car that ist meant to drive in cities, and not in a desert.
Some people use trucks for what they’re meant for.
Cousin-fucking
That escalated quickly.
Those people use vans or second hand trucks built before they got fat.
Second hand truck is still a truck.
I’ll translate for you: This thread is about trucks getting bloated.
Then someone suggested: if you don’t need a truck, don’t drive one.
Then you replied that some people still need trucks, to which someone replied: sure, but they don’t need the bloated ones we’re talking about either.
The implication is that nobody needs bloated trucks with a tiny bed. Either you need one for work, in which case you don’t want a Karenwagon, or you don’t need a truck.
don’t drive a Truck at all. It’s easy, just drive a car
No nuance there. Don’t drive a truck. Period.
Small trucks vs. large trucks. Please follow the thread.
don’t drive a Truck at all. It’s easy, just drive a car
No nuance there. Don’t drive a truck. Period.
Whatever happened to smaller Ford Ranger type trucks?
Oddly enough, environmental regulations happened. When the government was pushing for fuel economy regulation, the auto manufacturers were scared. They managed to talk the government into adding an exception where as wheel base increases, fuel economy is allowed to drop.
If you don’t see the loophole in this, you wouldn’t the only one. After all, it sounds fine on the surface; large trucks need more fuel… Right? But it means that auto manufacturers pivoted to almost universally making (and marketing) larger SUVs and trucks, because their quality control can be much more lax when they aren’t trying to hit strict emissions and efficiency milestones. Their profit margins on large vehicles are much higher. Like 20-40% higher, because they’re easier to produce and sell for more. They’re able to get away with much more when the vehicle is larger, so they heavily leaned into the “larger cars are better” marketing.
Yikes, even Rivians are having similar issues, so this isn’t exclusive to these shitty trucks.
That being said, given the sheer number quality control problems with the Cybertruck I’m not willing to discount there being some sort of manufacturing defect contributing to tire problems. Like maybe Telsa didn’t give the right specs to Goodyear, or maybe they cheaped out on the materials used, or Elon got involved and demanded that ketamine needed to be mixed into the rubber or something.
Whatever happened to smaller Ford Ranger type trucks?
Ford’s compact truck is called the Maverick now. Unfortunately, it’s actually an Ute (like an El Camino) not a real truck, because it’s unibody instead of body-on-frame, but it’s the closest we’re gonna get. Honda and Hyundai also make kinda-small unibody kinda-trucks, by the way.
Really small trucks, like '80s Nissan P’ups and VW Rabbit Pickups, continue to no longer exist.
The El Camino was body on frame, it was a “real” truck!
They still make the Ranger, and the Colorado, and the Tundra, but those mid-sized trucks are all the size of full-sized trucks of yesteryear.
There’s the Maverick these days…
Not much else though.
Profit margin is smaller on smaller trucks, so they keep trying to not make them.
Ranger… Those things are a monstrosity.
Whatever happened to Ford Falcon Utes. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Ford_AUII_Falcon_XR8_Ute.JPG/1920px-Ford_AUII_Falcon_XR8_Ute.JPG
Whatever happened to vehicles that don’t require steps to exit / enter the cab. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/1999_Ford_Falcon_(AU)_XR8_sedan_(2004-01-24)_02.jpg/1920px-1999_Ford_Falcon_(AU)_XR8_sedan_(2004-01-24)_02.jpg
The obsession / normalisation of huge vehicles that transport generally one person is toxic beyond belief. I feel like shit driving my 1.4L shitbox most places, sure it’s convenient but it’s not great for the environment, my wallet or my health. Can’t imagine the wasted resources from people driving their emotional support vehicles to do their errands.
Extremely heavy + low-end torque = bald tires, pronto!
But if you can afford this, you should not be cheaping out on the tires. Who would spend so much to ignore maintenance?
Who would spend so much to ignore maintenance?
I am firmly convinced the more something costs vs it’s useful value, the less the owner actually cares about it beyond the “bling” factor.
So, a $150k “truck” that is as useful as a $40k truck, likely is just owned as a “look at me, I’m rich” and the owner doesn’t care if it breaks, just that they are considered “rich” among their peers.
I am looking forward to lighter weight batteries with larger drive range that should be coming out in the near future but I’m also holding off on getting an electric vehicle until these issues are sorted out.
Plus, one of the largest sources of pollution in the form of forever chemicals comes from vehicle tires so we definitely need to fucking work on that.
I’ve always been told Charles Goodyear was a really great guy and a hard-working inventor and I feel like he would be rolling over in his grave to know that the reason why so many fish are dying out is because of his invention.
I too am very concerned about pollution from tire particles. Although, I can’t even begin to consider electric anyway because there’s no infrastructure in my area, and I can’t get permission to install a charger.
forever chemicals
Do tyres contain PFAS? I thought that the fish issue was that some of the rubber additives mimicted fish hormones.
There is only one tire that fits on that shitty rim as far as i know
There’s options (285/65r20 if you want to look) it’s the weight that’s the issue
Tech bros
Some of these tires outlast the truck, so there is that
🎶 Always look on the bright side of life… Dududududdudutudu 🎶
My first thought when I hears that was, oh, that’s not bad, that’s about what I get out of a set of Pirelli Angel STs. …Except that’s a sport touring motorcycle tire. I usually go through at least one set of tires each year on my motorcycle, but it’s been three years or so for the tires on my car.
Truck tires should last 60,000 miles.
Okay, so, the curb weight of a Ford F-250 is 7400#, while the curb weight of of Tesla Cybertruck is 6900#. That’s a 500# difference, with the Ford being heavier. If it’s the weight alone, then the Tesla should have better tire life than the Ford, and I strongly suspect that’s not the case. Perhaps Tesla is spec’ing a softer compound tire in order to actually use the enormous amounts of torque that is available to it?
I know that off-road tires tend to die fairly quickly when used on the road–softer compound + less contact patch at any given time–but it doesn’t appear that they’re using off-road tires on the Teslas.
So what’s going on here? Why are they burning through expensive tires so fast?
I am not from the US, and was surprised to see the number (hash) mark used to denote pounds, not just a number.
BTW, next year it will be 50 years after the metric system was stated as the preferred system for weights and measurements for US trade and commerce by law. Still not quite there yet, it seems.
We were on our way and then in 1980 we elected Reagan and effectively canceled the conversion to metric.
Well, to be fair, trade and commerce is a little different than the average person weighing something
For the record I would love to go metric, but since I live in the US I’m fully engrossed in pounds, inches, etc
About double the torque and horsepower, and it’s all available from standstill.
I would ask what kind of douchenozzle would attempt to use all of it, but I guess that the Venn diagram of “people that want to use every bit of torque and horsepower their car has” and “people that buy Cybertrucks” is a circle.
That’s it in a nutshell exactly.
don’t be ridiculous
Most douchenozzles can’t afford a cybertruck
I’m not sure what the Cybertruck uses, but they do make tires meant specifically for EVs. They tend to sacrifice some traction for increased range. Also not sure if that affects durability but it is a factor that may be worth considering!
Very, very few people need as much traction as their tires can give them on a daily basis. I have a VW GTI, and I put the longest lasting tires on it that I could find, because–even living in the mountains–I’m simply not getting even remotely close to the limits.
What I’m saying is that sacrificing grip for longevity makes sense for most people.
I remember crossing a wet road with the stock tires that came with my Bolt and spinning them. My infant daughter was set to come home soon, and snow would be there soon after.
Could I have gotten by on the stocks? Maybe. Did I want to find out the hard way that I couldn’t? Hell no. I didn’t go nuts for the grippiest tires I could find, but still wanted to improve on that. I regret nothing.
I suspect a set of motorcycle tyres is also a smidgen cheaper than a set of car tyres.
If only because there’s only half as many to get… ;)
Bahahahaha. Mine were 250 a piece.
The stock cybertruck tires are twice that
deleted by creator
If you want more life out of a tire, you need to manufacture it with a harder compound, but you sacrifice dry performance. If you want better dry performance from a tire, you need to manufacture it with a softer compound, but you sacrifice treadwear.
So this was basically the trade-off made to get off the line faster, which is really pointless in real world use. Seems like a common thread with this thing.
Dry performance is also handling… If you don’t want those 7k pounds “trucks” driving off the road when taking a curve then softer compound it is.
Yes, once you have inertia built up, you need friction between the vehicle and the road (via the tires) in order to come to a stop, or change direction. A 7000 lb vehicle is always going to eat tires.
Well, I’m sure it doesn’t help that the stupid shape probably provides the opposite of downforce.
It’s amazing that dumpster tires would last that long in the first place.
Semi tires last a lot longer than that and semis weigh far more. Surely appropriate tires exist?
Semi tires weigh like a hundred pounds. You'd get very little range with four of those bad boys. A semi tractor weighs 10k to 25k lbs with ten wheels. So 1k to 2.5k lbs per tire vs 1.75k lbs per tire on the cybertruck. The cybertruck weighs about 1500 lbs more than my truck. I'm sure there are better tires but reducing rotational weight is good too. If I had one I'd trade less charging for more tires. I guess I'd use the money I'd save on oil changes to buy the extra tires (math does not work on that. )They require 285/65r20 tires so you can look at the options
I’m sorry, what? The tyres last a mere 6000 miles, or less than 10000km?
The first set of tyres on my regular SUV got me to 80000km (almost 50000 miles). If I get less than 60000km out of the second set I’ll be somewhat irritated.
The service interval on my car is 15000km. At the mileage I’m doing that’s twice a year. There’s no way I’d be buying three sets of tyres each year. Fuck that car.
So 5k more than the truck itself?
Electric vehicles are notoriously hard on tires, since the high torque motors don’t have as gradual of a buildup to momentum. That combined with the heavier load would absolutely kill treadlife, I imagine.
since the high torque motors don’t have as gradual of a buildup to momentum
I’m sorry, what? All the ones I’ve driven by default work like this. You can usually change settings or sometimes just floor it though.
Well I’m not an EV expert, but I have worked in the tire industry for 7 years so that’s my lay person’s understanding of why electric vehicle owners tend to burn through tires.
Key takeaway is that this isn’t unique to Cybertrucks, as much as we’d all like to dunk on it. Another commenter pointed out Rivians have similar treadlife issues, and I know certainly other Tesla models do.
No one should be shocked. EV’s burn through tires faster the ICE vehicles due to the extra weight of the battery packs. That Cyber Bucket is very heavy for what it is.
6k EV vs 60-70k on ICE? doesn’t seem accurate.
Yeah, it’s possible. It’s a well known secret that EVs wear tires faster than ICE due to the extra weight. But the average EV, while wearing out tires at a faster rate, are lot better than the cyber thing. The average EV will show faster tire wear due to the extra heat generated by the heavier weights of the batteries vs the same sized ICE. I think in the US one should expect around 40,000 miles use on an EV. YMMV - literally - depending on where you drive and your driving habits.
I suspect the cyber crap’s poor tire life is not only influenced by the weight and driving habits of the owners. But also a poor choice of rubber compounds used in the tires. I suspect that a harder rubber compound and stiffer tire could have been chosen to increase tire life to something far more reasonable. But if they had done that, that $100,000 truck would ride like well, a truck…And we can’t have that can we? The owners expect a Cadillac quality ride from their truck. Which means softer tires to give a better cushion against bumps, which in turn wears out faster, which means you replace those tires more often. And the next thing you know, you are replacing tires every year…
Guy yesyerday on Whirlpool saying he had to replace the tyres on his BMW i4, at 40,000km. He was shocked :)
The new like for like tyres were $2500 (in Australian banana dollars).
Tyre pollution is a real killer and made much worse with EVs :(
For all it costs to build one you hadda know theyd cheapout somewhere
What can I say about the Cyber Rust and it’s owners that hasn’t already been said?
I still can’t wait until this winter when road salt turns these things into one half of a thermite bomb.
Even the tires are shitty. This is my shocked face.
