The easy question would be: Do You Love Or Hate The Cybertruck? But we’re too high-minded to succumb to that; right? So how about we consider the CT in its historical context, as to whether it is the most radically different mass production vehicle design ever? It absolutely shatters the paradigm for pickup trucks; there’s no doubt in my mind regarding that category. I’ve been struggling to come up with production automobiles that had such a radically different shape, proportions and design. I’ve got one or two candidates and a couple of other considerations, but I’m not too confident that they were quite as unique and radically different in their time as the CT.
Here’s a pretty easy one, but to wasn’t exactly a mass-production vehicle (15 were made). It’s the 1968 Quasar Unipower. Obviously, it was a radical idea in terms of it being a glass cube on wheels, with even transparent inflatable seats. It just goes to show you how we’ve changed; once we wanted to be seen, fully so; now we hide behind tinted windows in our rolling bunkers. It’s essentially the polar opposite of the bullet-proof Cybertruck in just about every way.
My best shot in terms of a genuine production car is the 1955 Citroen DS. It was radically different and a pretty serious mind-blower when it arrived, given what cars looked like at the time, especially in Europe. Its unusual shape and proportions, with a long, wide and low front end and a narrow short rear end with the rear wheels way out in back were the result of an unwillingness to compromise its aerodynamic and packaging ideals to the popular standards of automotive design at the time. Those were mostly going in the exact opposite direction, increasingly favoring large and blunt chromed front ends, boxy bodies and long tails with fins.
The DS wowed the crowds at auto shows, and it was all over the popular press and media at the times, not unlike the attention the CT is getting.
What’s interesting about the DS is that it wasn’t really ever copied, probably in part because it was so radical and also because its shape and proportions were heavily influenced by its FWD power train. It will be interesting to see if the CT spawns imitators or whether it will stay as unique as the DS did over its almost 20 year lifespan.
I suppose the Messerschmidt Kabinenroller deserves serious consideration.
And that applies to the Isetta, as well as perhaps a few other creative and unusual micro-cars of that era (1950s).
One might well be tempted to nominate the 1933 Tatra T77. It was the first streamliner built in some degree of quantities, although that was still very limited, so it’s a bit marginal in that respect. And there were already some other streamliner concepts around before it was built.
For that matter, the T77 was anything but original, as its patent drawing (bottom) is virtually identical to Tom Tjaarda’s “revolutionary” aerodynamic car concept of 1931 (top). But nevertheless, the T77 deserves an honorable mention for putting the aerodynamic principles of Jaray into a production car.
As to other pre-war cars, there were of course many radical experiments and concepts, and some were built in very limited quantities, but that’s a bit out of our current perspective, so I would suggest we focus mainly on post-war cars. So what are your nominations?
I like your nominees, and realize there are all sorts of “mass production” thresholds (at varying prices). The Citroen seems to be an especially un-qualified choice; and then there were all sorts of low-production 1960s-70s-80s “city cars” that came and went, much like your Quasar.
I’m not a GM guy, but the Corvair comes to mind—I wonder what Europe thought of it, and did it have many export sales? I’ll be interested in others’ suggestions.
Fun topic!
The Europeans went gaga over the 1960 Corvair, and its styling was rampantly copied for a very long time.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-how-the-1960-corvair-started-a-global-design-revolution/
It was exported, but not really in large numbers as all American cars were just so much more expensive for Europeans due to the strong dollar and other factors.
The Citroen DS is a pretty good choice given all of the things it had goin’ on in one package — and its surprising modern (if almost painfully idiosyncratic) appearance. The front end design, I’ll opine, presaged (and perhaps??? influenced) a number of later and arguably more revered designs. I am thinking of most 😉 Ferraris of the early to mid 1960s, and maybe even the Jaguar XK-E. Maybe. 🙂
Tucker Torpedo (48) was certainly a technically advanced rendering of the Tatra.
Morris/Austin Mini offered a template that became the industry standard and is also a cultural icon whose shape and basic layout is still mimicked by the modern Mini.
VW Bus and Corvan equivalents predicted the minivan era.
Willys (Jeep) Wagon and Pickup led the way in making 4WD SUVs and pickups mainstream, while the wagon pioneered all-steel wagon construction.
Loewy Studebaker (Starliner) coupe and 4 seater T-Bird led the way in creating “sport-luxury” (aka personal luxury) style offerings built off ordinary sedan architecture that predicted the PLC market and sport (pony) coupe markets as major profit centers for world automakers in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and into the 90s.
Agree that Tucker deserves a mention here. Though with very low production numbers, one could seriously challenge if this counts as serial production given how much the fifty-odd vehicles were refined in a ”pre-series” way. But Tucker, with features such as the integrated rollbar in the roof, interior padded for security and steering box and column set up as to minimize driver casualty in case of an accident show many signs of forward-thinking design.
The form is certainly radical, but it kind of overwhelms the actual utilitarian function of a truck imo. It remains to be seen whether it’s production and content innovation is a real game changer, however it’s certainly not boring, that’s for sure. Musk sure does knows how to stimulate interest. The ’55 Citroen is certainly a comparable in terms of a radical change in outward design and inward content. The ’34 Chrysler Airflow is perhaps an earlier and somewhat less radical example, one whose whose new ideas in aerodynamics combined with chassis design became influential but were slow to be appreciated.
I was going to mention the Airflow too – probably not as drastic a change as the CT styling-wise, but more so engineering-wise. The CyberTruck doesn’t have much tech that hasn’t appeared on previous Teslas, the DeLorean, or other recent EV startups’ efforts.
I nominate the 1974 AMC Matador coupe.
It inspired dozens of people to embrace the future of uber-googly cars which lasted at least until slightly later in 1974.
Clearly Paul has made a case for several contenders to be dubbed “Most Radical.” One has to consider the era, for certain.
And as for “certain,” I’m certain the CT is the ugliest vehicle introduced in my lifetime, with the possible exception of the 1957 Edsel.
If I were still 8 years old I’m not even sure if this would be the shape that would excite me to build a soap box, there is only the ease of cutting plywood that would lead me to choose this shape.I think that at that time the shape of Kleenex boxes excited me more…
I was wondering when the Cybertruck was going to come up here.
I’d say it is the most radically different vehicle to debut in the post war era, with the DS not far behind.
Will it be influential and spawn imitators? Well there is the Robotruck https://aitekx.com/ which does seem like a scam that will never make it to market so I don’t know if that really counts.
Of course only time will tell but I doubt it will have that much influence in the vehicles that actually make it to market in the near and medium future. Pickups in particular as there are just too many functional compromises in the name of making something unique and different. Certainly there are those who won’t care about the functionality of it as a pickup/work vehicle but I can’t see any of the current truck makers disregarding the current customer base to chase such radical changes.
I have to nominate the 1938 KdF-Wagen, aka Volkswagen Beetle as the most radically different production car ever based on its price-point and accessibility to the American poor and working-classes of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
This Beetle and its “Bus” counterpart played major roles in defining “hippie culture” which spawned three decades of popular rock & roll on European and American radios, urban sprawl and the “white flight” into American suburbia, the 1980’s yuppies, and the post-Kennedy democrat party platform. Which is now commonly defined in America by The Borg-like slogan “the values of a rules-based order.”
Additionally, the VW Beetle was one of the first consumer products to embrace the “less is more” philosophy that has spilled over into organic farming, and the rise of corporations such as Starbucks, Whole Foods, Chipotle, etc.
All of this is the result of the butterfly effect caused by the popularity of the Volkswagen Beetle with young American baby-boom hippies. Would we be on the same timeline if hippie culture was defined instead by the Ford Falcon and Econoline? I think not.
While the Cybertruck is radically different in some respects, it will never have the mass-market appeal of the Beetle because it’s too damn expensive and just displays too much conspicuous consumption in its design overall to appeal to the neo-hippie/hipsters.
In my opinion, the Cybertruck is Tesla’s 1965 Ford LTD and the American auto industry is on the cusp of sliding head first into another epoch. This time instead of opera lights and vinyl roofs, it’s going to be (formerly) adjustable ride heights, (broken) LCD-screens plastered everywhere on the dashboard, and other gimmick dazzlements such as alleged “full self-driving auto pilot.”
However, the Cybetruck’s impact on 21st Century automotive design may have many residual yields in the industry. Particularly if the 48 volt power system and “steer-by-wire” trickle down into the rest of Tesla’s and its competitors line-ups. The Cybertruck is no Beetle, but in these respects it may be the 21st Century’s answer to the 1929 Auburn Cord which introduced the world to front-wheel drive and advanced braking technology a century ago.
I tend to struggle with definitive answers, but I think that pickups, with theirfairly recent huge increase in popularity as a family vehicle (US, Australia, Latin America, and increasing parts of Europe) are different enough from pure passenger cars that there should be two answers. For pickups, I think the Cybertruck is the easy answer. For passenger cars, I agree with the choice of the DS.
In their design and engineering details, their influence may be subtle. But more conceptually, and in the whole, not taken individually, their features have been (DS) and will be (CT) adopted ubiquitously. In the case of the DS, front wheel drive, an aerodynamic shape, unibody, independent and self-leveling suspension (the latter not ubiquitous, but common enough), disk brakes, assisted steering, braking, and shifting, radial tires. All of these had been seen before but Citroen put them together. And most cars today follow this model except for the leveling suspension.
Setting aside the EV powertrain, the CT’s 48V electricals, steer-by-wire and the 4 wheel steering that SBW enables without complex front-rear mechanical connections will I think be seen soon on all cars; the aerodynamic. ultra stiff body rather than body-on-frame, and innovative covered bed should influence pickup design as well. But again, taken as a whole and not just individual features, it’s the overall design that like the DS, is different. And I think it all works together well. For the record, I find the DS, the CT, and the Citroen SM to all be very … ugly. But as someone once told me long ago, you don’t look at a car when you’re driving it.
I was going to go with the Citroen DS even before seeing it mentioned. It’s the obvious choice IMO, raising the bar on so many aspects of automotive design – aerodynamic styling, adjustable height float-on-air suspension and its magic-carpet ride, flat-floor FWD, steel belted radial tires, easily removable fenders, the ability to change a flat tire without using a jack, a whole bunch of new ideas as to how brake pedals should work, and much more I’m forgetting now. It wasn’t all about wild styling.
Some of your examples are good ones, but I’d look at this more from the side of mass production. This quite hideous “truck” is supposed to be a mass production vehicle unlike several on your list. Even then what would mass production be to one person over the other?
So for your question, I’d have to say this thing is one of the worst designs in my lifetime of 56 years. Of course, what would you expect from a person such as Musk who can’t breathe without being in the spotlight. So for his Tesla company to produce such a vehicle as this only affirms his need to be the subject of anything. But how will this actually perform as a real truck? Will it (or can it) do that job? Other designs in the past such as those you list in the story such as the Citreon or Tatra may have a strange exterior shape as well as some interesting interior stuff going on. However, they would still perform the basic functions of a sedan just like a Chevy Impala or Ford Galaxy. I’m just not convinced this CT from Tesla can or will be able to perform the same tasks as a Silverado or F150. It’s been designed and made for those seeking attention. Just like Musk.
I’d go with the Ford Model T. It was revolutionary for its time and literally changed the world.
From a revolutionary standpoint, the VW Beetle was already on the market, but its arrival in North America in the 1950s and early ’60s shifted the paradigm from large to small cars in mass sales volume.
Also, taking into account the troublesome ”birth” if you like, of the VW Beetle, and how NY-based ad agency DDB summed up their brief of having to sell a ”nazi car in a jewish town” then the result was pretty revolutionary.
To me it’s Cybertruck no doubt. Radical Gandini-like styling, different body material, different propulsion ( electrics are still minority), different idea for a truck, I could go on.
Citroën DS/ID of course. Mass produced for sure, for 20 years at a stretch.
I would submit the Dymaxion Car, but it was not mass-produced, and had a nasty tendency to turn turtle.
The Cybertruck is, in my opinion as a retired industrial designer, the antithesis of the maxim, ‘form follows function’ (I’ll concede that it’s certainly not the only vehicle for which that applies). There’s a big difference between art and design/architecture.
A thought: pickup trucks represent the current developmental stage of the buckboard wagon. The Cybertruck and other similar vehicles blur the lines between pickups and large station wagons (a.k.a. SUVs), which perhaps are analogous to the stage coach or stage wagon of days gone by (an enclosed buckboard, optimized for people as the cargo). We’re still trying to solve the same old problem, in other words.
I honestly think we have yet to see a truly revolutionary use of battery-electric technology (which has potential to have a large impact on form in a way that harmonizes with function) to solve the age-old people/cargo packaging (function) problem.
As a retired mechanical engineer I think the CT’s form follows its function quite well. Perhaps that’s in fact why it is so ugly, though I have to confess it’s growing on me, and I’ve seen several on the road though not up close. But maybe I have confirmation bias as I am a “reservation holder” (aka interest free loan to Tesla). Check out interviews with Tesla’s VP of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy and a lot of non-obvious things that just seem like styling, and weird styling at that, are hugely functional.
In fact one comes away realizing that conventional body-on-frame pickups (and I’ve owned several and own one now) are suboptimal for almost all uses except as a medium duty chassis cab or for towing gooseneck horse trailers, car carriers or travel trailers. Which are really tiny corner cases for most owners.
“A rationally designed structure may not necessarily be beautiful but no building can be beautiful that does not have a rationally designed structure.” ~ Viollet-le-Duc (the inspiration for “form follows function” – see also “If it looks good, it will fly good” – Bill Lear)
The CT may indeed have a rationally-designed structure (which I think is perhaps what you’re reacting to), but it, as you admit, falls far short of being beautiful.
That’s what (good) industrial design is all about – the intersection of art and engineering that results in beautiful, usable, manufacturable product.
We had more than a few MEs transfer into the ID program when I was at GA Tech – they started in ME because they wanted to ‘design’ products, and quickly realized there’s a difference between designing and engineering. Both are important – don’t get me wrong! My point above is that function appears to have taken a back seat to form in this case, resulting in an ‘un-beautiful,’ if not un-useful product.
I’ll concede and agree with your point that BOF pickups have a narrow use-case, if approached purely from a functional standpoint. That hasn’t stopped folks buying them for the purpose of commuting to work, however.
Perhaps the real takeaway is that people are irrational in their purchasing decisions!
I worked closely with ID pretty much my whole career. The best ID’s in my experience were true product designers, a term usurped by Stanford for an Engineering School graduate program. The worst ID’s, well, I won’t go there. Seriously though, I think, like the DS the functional benefits of the CT design will become appreciated over time. Or I could be very wrong. I don’t like the CT aesthetically but it is a lot better than a Buick Somerset, although I suppose one could argue that the Buick’s function was as bad as its form.
BOF trucks are not suboptimal for most use cases. The BOF archetecture allows the wide variety of configurations economically. Sure if you want to produce a single configuration like the Maverick, Rivian or CT a Unibody has advantages. However if you want to offer multiple cab configurations, bed lengths and a wide range of load capacities the BOF configuration is optimal.
This is a fascinating little sidebar, Ed and dman.
It seems to me that the very best designs (of anything) move the game on in some way of function, whilst also adding that indefinable of art to the whole: and the CT falls over here, arguably on both counts. It appears to do nothing any electric truck of this size and cost and stupendous weight should be able to do, and the styling (which adds nothing at all to the function) is quite bereft of any art.
But then, this isn’t quite the question the qotd asked. Very relevant to the worth of the thing, though.
The CT styling is radical, but not really a move forward in design. Looks like it was constructed by a 10-year-old from plywood sheets.
(A loooong-time reader delurks…)
Some good suggestions here, and the DS is what sprung to my own mind even before this post, but surely the late ’90s Fiat Multipla must be in the running. Personally I liked it, but it was certainly strange, and absolutely a mass-market car.
Interesting thinking, that (and I personally love the madness of the Fiat).
I wonder, though, if it might be said that it was not radical, because it was really just a two-box shape with highly eccentric details?
Food for thought.
It first has to be proven to be “mass produced”. Whatever that is.
Most radically designed FOR mass production at this point in time is more appropriate.
Of course you have to define mass produced, is it 1000, 10,000, 100,000 or what? But I am confident that they will produce enough of them that most people will consider them to be mass produced. Even if they are a massive money looser I don’t see Elon allowing it to be canceled anytime soon and while I don’t believe the rumored 1+ million reservations will translate into orders, I’m pretty sure there are enough takers to sell 100k or more.
I’ll throw a few out…
Mini Moke.
Willys Jeepster. Our second car when I was a kid. Once when Dad was making a left turn, momentum pushed me against the right front door which popped open with me falling out onto the street. Scrapes and scratches, no broken bones.
Amphicar. I once got picked up by one of these while hitchhiking, a rare experience.
Rare? I’ll say, were you walking on water?
It’s prewar I know (and from just shortly after WW1 ended), but the 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen deserves a mention. What other 1921 model looked like *this*? Rumpler was decades in front of the streamlining/aerodynamics trend.
It certainly does. In fact, it deserves to be #1. It was radically different in just about every way, in terms of its platform chassis, mid-rear engine, rear transaxle with swing axles (invented by Rumpler) and of course the very aerodynamic and roomy body.
And as long as we’re talking cars with innovative body/platform structures (an aluminum space-frame unibody in this case), rear engine, IRS, and great space utilization, there’s the Stout Scarab, another between-the-wars effort that presaged minivans and 3-row crossovers with multi-configurable interiors and was full of fresh ideas. It fails the “mass production” requirement though, with about one Stout built for every five Tuckers.
+1.I was just thinking of this vehicle, though of course not made en masse.
I am not sure what criteria these few vehicles were selected here. Personally I would include Chrysler Arrowflow, Trucker, Tatra 600 & 603, Contach and all models of Perius on the list. They are all highly innovative, inspired and influential vehicles.
As Tesla CT, is it is more important to be physically bulletproof than with bulletproof reliability? CT is not my cup of tea, it looks like a vehicle more suitable as custom for bad sci-fi movies ,
I was wondering the same. I mean, are we talking radical in the sense of styling, or does engineering come into play, too? If the former, then there are myriad examples that were just plain ‘radically’ ugly but had no engineering deviations.
Likewise, there are the cars that have radical (or at least advanced) features underneath a humdrum (for the time) sheetmetal. That was exactly Henry Ford’s plan for the Model T which, externally, remained virtually unchanged during its entire model run. The Beetle fits into that one, too.
Combining the two, well, I can’t find fault with the general consensus on the Citroen DS. It seems extraordinarily advanced in many ways for 1955 and I could see it easily being the basis for a modern, retro-mobile.
In fact, here’s one off the top of my head: 1976 Aston Martin Lagonda. It definitely fits the radical styling criteria and had the first digital instrument display, something that’s been standard on most new cars (except those on the lowest rungs) for sometime.
Methinks Isetta is a safe winner here. An absolute unique construction, that will never be seen again. Few people know that – except from the door- its most clever item was the position of the engine, which was to the rear right of the driver. Mass balancing was only achieved if there was a driver inside. Jawdroppingly brilliant engeneering.
PS:
I know that there is a “new” electric Isetta, called Microlino.
But it is just rubbish at ~ $20.000.-
When I read the opening, my mind went to Tucker, as have a few others. Maybe it’s the aura of the upstart automaker. But, in terms of styling, the Tucker was mostly a product of its time.
Unforced styling error? We’ll find out soon enough. If so, I’ll venture the 1962 Dodge for its radically different ancestor.
I viewed the Tesla website, the bed cover and composite bed may be innovative if they work as intended. The radically sloped roof may create an unnecessary intrusion on headroom. Tesla is not immune to the unnecessary – gullwing doors on the X have been a consistent problem area.
I don’t care for the styling, and it is out of sync with the other Tesla models – which are all ageing at this point. If this is the styling of future Tesla cars, the appearance has already become worn – how many years have we been seeing pictures of the Cybertruck?
Tesla claims the stainless is relatively dent proof. I hope so, dented stainless appliances look awful – this truck won’t look any better covered in dents.
Cyber is defined as “relating to or characteristic of the culture of computers, information technology, and virtual reality.”
I don’t get the name. What’s cyber about this compared to other Tesla models or competing trucks?
The name “Cyber” sounds exciting and fun and very much of it’s era.
Makes a little more sense than “Turbo” stamped on so many things in the 80s like combs and sunglasses. My childhood friend had a “Turbo” binder but I’m pretty sure it was naturally aspirated.
Oh contraire! “Cyber” has only negative intimations to my mind: cyber-attack, cyber-porn, cyber-bully (which, in collection, sounds rather like a personal ad for Musk himself, but I digress).
When a teen, I was given some (probably attempted-trendy) Chinese-origin shorts with random colored words making up the pattern, with that word “turbo” one of them.
I’d guess the (mis)translated thinking was that any male teen wants to have blown shorts.
The CT leaves the 1000 HP Hummer behind. The CT is nearly 3000 pounds LESS than the Hummer. The Hummer is a 10,000 pound brick being shoved through the air and carries thousands of pounds of batteries that don’t even begin to compare to what is in the newest CT. The CT is much faster because it is more efficient in design, weight, shape and in quality. The Hummer and the Ford Lightening look like Conestoga Wagons compared to the CT in shape and in technologies.
How the CT is being manufactured is as radical as its looks. The material used to make the CT is also completely new. The energy cells are completely new. Everything in the CT is made in-house, which is back to the future to the Ford Model T. Like the Model T, and other Tesla vehicles, the production costs are dropping, causing the price to assemble and produce to drop. Tesla isn’t lowering their car prices to sell them – it costs less to build them this year, than last year. The prices on Teslas are dropping because the cost of manufacturing them is dropping. So we’re talking about what we saw with the Model T back in 1908 and how the prices kept dropping the more they made.
The looks are intentional. It is designed to be shocking, and it is working. Don’t expect future Tesla products to look similar, unless there is a real need.
The CT is not just a pretty face. It is a revolutionary vehicle poised to drive a number of traditional auto manufacturers out of business. I believe this is a reason why you are seeing other auto manufacturers resetting priorities. Tesla is a total game changer.
All true, regardless of what any individual (like me) might think of the CT’s appearance.
I’m completely ambivalent about Teslas, but I watched a recent Hagerty video on the Cybertruck, and it’s amazing, a huge leap in automotive design. There’s no chance I’d buy one even if it were in my price bracket, but it’s hard to deny how much advanced engineering Tesla put into this thing.
Yes, that Hagerty video with Jason Cammisa gave me a new appreciation for the Cybertruck’s engineering. It is an amazing vehicle.
I came here to say Corvair and then VW Bug, but the more I think of it I think that those who say DS are on the mark.
(The Quasar is great…although I think that given that most drivers don’t quite stack up to the model in the demo version – lord knows I can’t remember the last time I wore a mini dress. So that was a concept that had limited appeal)
The thing about the DS that makes it all the more a better answer is that it was right on the mark so far as the technology. Which, I think that the CT is pretty close to. What the DS did not have going for it (so far as adoption in the U.S. market) was its unique and quirky French design. I see the CyberTruck (it does need the ridiculous capital T in the middle of the word, no?) in a similar vein. Its aesthetics are totally thumb-poke-in-the-eye (i.e. a giant F*** You) to the autobuying public. But we’ll get over that and so will Tesla (assuming they can eventually untether themselves from a certain individual). This ideally will be easier for Tesla to accomplish than it was ever for Citroen to manage to not be French.
(Here I should say that I have nothing personally against French design – as if anyone should care what I think. I just think that it’s unique.)
Point being that 10 years from now, we may well look back on the CyberTruck as the start of something. Something that wound up being quite successful for the company (since reorganized) that used to be owned by “that guy”.
I’m not so sure about a successful road ahead for the CyberTruck. No matter how advanced it is under the skin, its skin just might be too oddball for its market segment.
Tesla uses a small T.
From the side it looks like a Pontiac Aztec. From the front a Renha Formigão.
Aztec came to mind for me as well, a vehicle Bob Lutz called an angry appliance.
If the Cybertruck sells well, it will probably cause more folks to choose their garage refrigerator in stainless!
Pontiac Aztec tent
Cybertruck tent
When I first became acquainted with the Citroen DS as a kid, I thought that it was the ugliest thing that I’d ever seen. Later when I learned of all the engineering and safety features I gained some respect for the design. But I still think that it is the ugliest thing ever, well at least until the CT arrived. I’ve seen a couple, driving in traffic alongside of me, as well a few on an auto transporter. I think that it’s taken too long to come to market, though I’m sure that there will be Tesla fans that will buy it. Aside from the early adopters, I don’t think that it will have widespead appeal. I see LOTS of Rivians running around the area, aside from their comical front lights, they look pretty conventional and pretty useful.
Elon’s own personal antics are going to cost him sales, this isn’t like the early 20th. Century where Henry Ford could spew his antisemitism and get away with it. I’m not likely to buy a new vehicle in the remaining twenty years left of my life, but I’d rather have a Cadillac Lyric. If I won the lottery a Celestique would definitely tempt me.
Good evening friends. Pardon my loquacity.
I find it difficult as the citizen of one country (which has no ‘home team’ to barrack for) to be objective about some other countries’ automotive output. Take that Messerschitt; if I had grown up in Fifties Germany instead of Fifties/sixties Australia, I would no doubt have a very different view of it. Must try to Think Global! Okay…
I think the Cybertruck will be the death of Tesla. I don’t want to see that, as Musk gave a wake-up call (and a knee in the groin) to the global car industry. They needed that. But I really can’t see this being a money-earner for him. I feel he has reached too far this time. We’re prone to do that type of thing; sometimes we need reining in. I know I do.
From the outset the Cyberturck seems to be a case of styling overriding function and practicality. Didn’t we grow out of that at the end of the tailfin era? Um, no, styling just took off in different directions while the world played Follow The Leader – we had rear fender hiplines, we had fuselage, we had Formal Brougham, we had Euro-square, we had Aero-curvy, we had Transformers, and now we seem to have what could perhaps best be decribed as Random.
Unless you were Alec Issigonis. I’m not saying his cars were the ‘First With This’ or the ‘Greatest Exponent Of That’ – rather that he had his own idea of design, which centred on the occupants and shoved everything else (including aesthetics) to the periphery. People First. Power to (and for) the People. Unlike many others.
Is the Cybertruck the ultimate Anti-Issigonis vehicle? Is it different purely for the sake of being different? Seems to be. But Paul asks ‘Is it the most radically different mass production vehicle ever?’
Depends. The propulsion isn’t new – proven in something like 5 million Teslas by now. The package isn’t new – big bulky pickups abound. The combination is new (but do we need it?), and the style. Oh, that style.
As Paul has shown us, Radical doesn’t always mean Influential, or The Way Forward. The Citroen DS was radical in a Yes kind of way. It was different, we could grasp the designer’s vision, it was in touch with peoples’ dreams of the future. Not imitated, but popular, and respected to the point of becoming Another Iconic Citroen. They used to be good at that.
The Cybertruck is certainly radical to look at, but in my opinion not as in touch with the spirit of the times as was the DS. If the Cybertruck is the future, I don’t want to go there.
My thoughts exactly. Many of these other leaps had some idea–right or wtong– the manufacturer thought was an improvement. I don’t think any “improvement” the Cybertruck supposedly brings to the table is a true better mousetrap.
The CT will remain a niche vehicle. It exudes such a sterility in its design, that it won’t appeal to a large market.
That’s the word, sterile. Excellent.
I’d add that that sterility is literal, as in lacking any life whatsoever. There is not the slightest subtlety or originality about the shapes, hell, there’s nothing new in triangles. To simply plonk them onto a car is no more than mildly (and briefly) arresting, and it’s probably what causes many folk to call the thing “childish”, or like a little kid’s effort. In terms of considered, or original thinking, folk are right: it is no more than a plonking any of us could do.
From an irremovable bias against the awfulness of the Musk personality (separated from his engineering and marketing skills), I can’t help but think he drew this, and, like a foot-stompy child, insisted it go forward unrefined in any way by his (styling) betters.
Well said Justy. If buyers want a truck for pure functionality and/or technological features, or to look cool, they won’t really care.
“If the Cybertruck is the future, I don’t want to go there”.
Exactly my summation.
Engineering aside, the CT is as much a step backward as the DS was forward.
The CT is certainly a polarizing design; people either like it or hate it, and how it performs as a truck is yet to be seen. Personally I don’t like it, it reminds me of something from a 1950’s sci-fi movie, but then I don’t really care for trucks. I drive a Honda Odyssey with fits my needs perfectly. In regard to production automobiles that shattered previously held perceptions the Citroen DS certainly qualifies, and also to a lesser extent the Volkswagen Bug, the Tatra and the Chrysler minivan. Will the CT be successful, only time will tell.
I’m sure I’m in the minority, if not completely alone, with my opinion that the CT looks boring. I don’t find it ugly or pretty. My standard of ugly has been numbed by so much fugly car styling of the last decade.
I’m excited for its futuristic tech and how it may change the paradigm towards the future. But it’s looks don’t move the meter in either direction for me.
I wonder what past decades of car stylists would think of it. “All this talent and hard work and people really just want THAT?”
Also works for clothes designers if they realized that all people really want is a burlap sack. A really big sack. With tiny holes to see out of.
Definitely not alone. Someone else said it looks like an 8-year old was told to build a car with plywood sheets. To go a step further, I’d say the styling is akin to one of those backwoods homebuilts where the builder had unlimited access to metal sheets and just cut and welded them together onto the chassis of some old Dodge truck chassis where the original body had rusted away.
The CT looks, quite literally, like a rolling box (especially from a direct rear perspective). I’m not sure if it’s bad enough to bring Musk and Tesla down, but I’m reasonably certain in saying it’s not going to be a smash success.
I’m with you. I don’t even necessarily hate wild direction, I’m certainly not attracted to traditional modern crewcab pickups, nor the egg shaped bodies of virtually anything else, but the Cyberytuck to me looks like nothing more than a rehash of the 70s era Giugiaro school of car design applied to a segment it never was before. And based on Musk’s love for the James Bond Esprit it’s surprising how many people bury their head in the sand pretending the CT is something revolutionary, sorry but I’ve seen it before, I’ve seen it in stainless steel before too.
To me it’s simply the car equivelent of a modern movie franchise reboot that subverts expectations with the genders of the cast flipped around, but is otherwise a mediocre retelling of the same old story from 40 years ago.
No, not alone. A not-great design gets uninteresting on a second or third look, and I’m already not much interested.
The Tesla Cyber Truck is the most radical clean sheet vehicle I can think of after the model S. Based on the great in-depth articles here at CC on Tesla and various other online forums the CT turned everything upsidedown and inside out. Except for the Model S no previous car has forced every large scale car manufacturer to wake up and take notice just how differently it is designed and manufactured. Most of my non-motorhead friends believe Tesla is just another car company making BEVs and sells direct to the consumer. I have given up trying to explain how Tesla does everything so differently because to them with the exception of the CT other Tesla models look like typical ICE cars and are not much different. To me the CT and first gen Prius are more about proof of concept than pretty sheet metal.
I’d say the closest historically would be the Tucker Torpedo, both the state of the art/revolutionary engineering and the marketing hype. And the Delorean DMC 12 while a compromised reality the original design was revolutionary (stainless steel too).
Mass production? err, maybe not but produced for nearly 2 decades, household name, has details that define the brand to this day and in its day made every car in the catagory immitate the wild direction… Countach. AKA Cybercoupe!
This makes better noises
Wow. That pic exposed the CT as a retro design.
Someone a few comments up compared it to a Lotus Esprit and the DeLorean, and I think the comparison is spot on. See also the 1970 Porsche Tapiro, the 1971 Maserati Boomerang, and the 1979 Aston Martin Bulldog (a William Towns design). The CT could very well be a PU version of any of those.
I see nothing new in the CT. Nothing I haven’t seen before paging through any number of car mags in the school library back in the ’70’s.
That Countach was the stuff dreams were made of for every kid in the 80s who had it on a Trapper Keeper or pinup of it in arrest-me-red hung up in their bedroom next to Farrah.
No kid escaped that time period without having their imagination throttled by Back to the Future and the DeLorean time machine. Musk must see the latter as the ultimate style piece since he keeps borrowing from its design.
Early gen Countach +1000
One of the greatest examples of a four wheel futurist form to come out of Italy.
The Pacer was radical in styling, and it was meant to be technically radical as well. GM spoiled the tech side, probably as intentional sabotage.
The styling reappeared later on Hondas, but I don’t know if they were influenced.
Sorry but I’m not seeing GM choosing to throw away all the development money to sabotage AMC. who they certainly didn’t view as a threat. If they wanted to sabotage AMC they could have stopped selling them all of the AC Delco, Rochester Products, Packard, Saginaw and Guide pieces that there was no way AMC could have made cars w/o.
It’s well documented that GM dropped their rotary engine program due to the gas crisis highlighting the Wankel’s inefficiency, and new GM management that was against the deployment of the rotary. Screwing over AMC didn’t play into it at all; they likely saw AMC buying their engines as a way to increase production numbers and efficiency and spread out the risks involved.
There is no doubt that GM originally agreed to sell their Rotary to AMC to help themselves by increasing potential production thus lowering the total cost per unit.
Moreover I don’t think the rotary would have made a lick of difference in the Pacers sales prospects, if anything AMC dodged a bullet, it was probably less of a loss for AMC’s bloated Pacer program using the amortized in house 6 cylinder than paying GM for their rotary supply, and surely dodged the likely warranty nightmares an unproven and to this day inherently troublesome engine design from GM non-V8 engine engineering reputation at that time was, well, bad.
The wankel didn’t promise fuel efficiency likely any greater than the 6 so where’s the consumer appeal/benefit? Concept drawings showed the Pacer with a much shorter front end, (presumably made possible by the rotary), so that got spoiled using the conventional 6, but that may well have gotten spoined by safety and lighting standards anyway.
Agreed on Scoutdude’s GM point, but the Pacer’s still a good candidate, keeping in mind the qotd. “Radical design” mass-produced, not necessarily influential design (which, for eg, the DS was not).
I’m unsure if in 2023 the Cybertruck is radically different mainly in appearance. If technology were included it might have to share its crown with the Model S, and there could be an argument for the Model S to be the more radical for its own time.
Based on visuals alone, I’d probably vote for the DS and the Cybertruck. I can’t think of any other vehicles that would have seemed quite so shocking on first view – possibly the Airflow?
If radical technology was the arbiter though, I’d want to put the Mini and the Model S up for consideration.
Wow. That pic exposed the CT as a retro design.
Someone a few comments up compared it to a Lotus Esprit and the DeLorean, and I think the comparison is spot on. See also the 1970 Porsche Tapiro, the 1971 Maserati Boomerang, and the 1979 Aston Martin Bulldog (a William Towns design). The CT could very well be a PU version of any of those.
I see nothing new in the CT. Nothing I haven’t seen before paging through any number of car mags in the school library back in the ’70’s.
Musk’s latest design miracle looks like it was knocked out by a DIYer with access to a supply of sheet aluminum over a weekend in his garage.
Of course those who bow at his feet will feel this is a “must own”. Just wait for the commemorative Franklin Mint issues, Or perhaps $150 bottles of “Cyber Truck” bourbon.
Dislike ^^^ Like below
I can just imagine Crocodile Dundee. “THIS is a truck!”
Or Crocodile Niedermeyer.
The CT looks like a five year old kids drawing of his daddy’s truck. Perhaps Elon has the original artwork on his refrigerator back home.
I think the ’59 Mini is a candidate, and I don’t mean for the radical engineering. What other post-separate-mudguard car had two boxes in these radical proportions, ie: such a small box and such a big one? And perhaps more importantly, which other car made something so enduringly stylish out of such a simple shape?
There’s not a shadow of doubt that the CT is the most radical design for many, many a year, and hard to take in that such a thing is (or will be) a mass-unit production.
But apart from some panicked imitation, I doubt it will have much influence. Not only is it too far outside mainstream tastes, which are always quite conservative, it simply isn’t very good. Put another way, it’s as unthinking as it seems to be: there is nothing of that magical, subtle difference that happens when a person of art reworks the familiar into something new.
Unlike the Beetle, Citroen DS, Airflow, etc., the Cybertruck’s styling is too cold to be endearing. Matt’s comparisons to the Countach is flattering.
Matt’s comparisons to the Countach is flattering.
Oh I agree, the CT looks like something I’d have drawn at the age of 6 attempting to draw a Lamborghini.
As far as it being endearing I’m sure there will be a slew of social media influencers with them, whether that will endear it through time like the other examples we’ll have to wait and see, could end up being like like Justin Bieber’s chrome wrapped Fisker Karma to them(remember that?).
One thing I’m confident on though, and I hate using this term, but the CT will be anything but timeless. It is so a product of its time it already looks like a throwback to the pre-pandemic/”everyone still loves that quirky Musk” era of 2019, and it hasn’t gotten any fresher to look at 4 years later. The first wave of origami styling that defined the Countach and Lotus Esprit wasn’t particularly endearing either from a marketability sense, as both quickly sprouted flares, wings, ground effects for both practical and aesthetic purposes that toned down the straight linedness of the core designs. The most endearing Countach to most people isn’t the original brutal appearing LP400, but the successors with their curved flares and round spoked “phone dial” wheels that effectively give the overall look a softer more approachable appearance
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the ‘83 Thunderbird.
I know it was merely a reskin of the Fox Box that preceded it, but it started a revolution of aero designs that went deep into the Great Jelly Bean Epoch of the nineties and even early 2000(s) for a few late adopters.
I remember when I bought mine and many of my friends had wondered what the hell Ford was thinking at the time. Then suddenly, aero designs were everywhere.
The Ford Sierra came before the Thunderbird, and likely influenced the T-Bird’s styling. I don’t think the original question was meant to be exclusive to domestic cars.
I’m surprised no one has nominated the Range-Rover, which played such a large part in kick-starting the switch from sedans to SUVs. Of course, it started quietly, over 50 years ago, and at first it was a smart and fully-functional 4×4 that the country set could use on the motorway; but it rapidly (and wholly unexpectedly to British Leyland) outgrew that market and became appropriate for driving to the opera or across the continent (of Europe).
I appreciate that there are Jeeps and Mercedes that some may feel are at least equally entitled to the crown, but I believe the Range-Rover defined the genre better than any other. If anyone in 1975 had suggested that, in the future, Porsche, Rolls-Royce and Cadillac would all derive their highest sales numbers from vehicles that had their genesis with the Range-Rover, we would have thought they were joking, but – whether with the original 4×4 capability or just with the style and configuration – a great many of us live in Spen King’s world now.
There’s a good argument that THE most influential car of the last 50 or so years is the Rangie for all the reasons you say, and it was radically different in its time. And a comfortable, essentially two-box car-like high car is what we practically all now drive.
But it’s equally arguable that the Jeep Cherokee got there first, although it was unsophisticated by comparison, and perhaps that’s where the RR “wins”, in the sense it added comfort and prestige to the equation by virtue of the suspensions and the (practically accidental) elegance of that iconic styling.
The cars below came to mind before I read any of the comments. Not all fit the definition of mass production though. (I did not think of the 1955 Citroen DS, which of course should have been an entry.)
Many of you agree as it turns out.
1901 Oldsmobile Curved Dash
1933 Tatra 77
1934 Chrysler Airflow
1937 Talbot-Lago T150 (Teardrop) (pictured)
1938 Volkswagen Beetle
1947 Cisitalia 202 Coupe
1948 Tucker
1960 Chevrolet Corvair
1984 Honda Civic hatchback
1984 Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager
1991 Toyota Previa
The CT is a halo car. At least in Europe, Tesla’s are to be seen in Mall showrooms and who is going to resist going in for a look? There is talk it won’t make it to Europe in any event so it looks as if production isn’t going to spread in any case. Enjoy it whilst it lasts.
One car that always springs first to mind when you say “paradigm shift” is the Lamborghini Miura. Man what a beautiful and just wild looking machine. Under the skin, the transverse mid engine v12 was a real game changer. Most exotic cars since then adopted the mid engine layout.
What is clear from this discussion is that the CT is certainly the most radically different mass produced vehicle in my lifetime. Whether the previous record-holder is the Citroen DS or the Tatra, we are reaching back to almost 70 years, minimum, on those designs.
I am still trying to work out my opinion on the CT. My visceral reaction is that I find it the opposite of beautiful – it is like the worst of the brutalist architecture from the middle of the last century. However, I can appreciate the attempt to present a radically different view of how a truck should work and look. Tesla has certainly done that.
If nothing else, Elon Musk has proved once again that he does not think in the same ways that most others do, and even more rare is that he is willing to act on those thoughts.
I think it is. People get too hung up on whether it’s a good pickup or not (see above), who cares, those same people usually get all hung up on whether pickup owners actually are doing pickup things with their pickups 100% of the time which they obviously aren’t all doing so there’s a market outside of the Farmer/Rancher/Construction worker/Bro. It was the right concept to explore four years ago, and now that the traditional makers who beat it to EV-market are realizing the market for electric “normal” pickups is limited, something radical may well be attractive to many, or at least enough.
More interesting may be the obvious brand extension that can easily be created by taking the roofline aft of the driver’s head, making it horizontal from the peak to the tail with a vertical drop down at the end and all of a sudden there’s the 8 passenger three row SUV that prints money in the US, second only (perhaps) to pickup trucks. The Cyber-X that makes the Rivian SUV look like a 2008 Honda Pilot.
Adding the SUV version to the Rivian truck was an obvious move for minimal additional production line expense and makes it attractive to many more people, I’ll be surprised if the Rivian SUV doesn’t end up outselling the Rivian truck actually. Tesla should be doing the same here, and the question is why hasn’t Ford made an EV-Xpedition yet? In this case, Americans love out-of-this-world stuff, the 50’s and a large chunk of the 60’s should have taught most of us that, and the CT is definitely that, looking most at home in a desert Mars-like meets Blade-Runner-esque moonscape. Perhaps with Barbarella sitting on the hood, Farrah-style. The struggle is real, this thing may perhaps be bulletproof, where better to be with the children during tomorrow’s shooting-du-jour.
If nothing else it’s resulted in an incalculable amount of free publicity for Tesla, in large part provided by those that profess to not like it or the company or the CEO, whether random individual, “journalist”, or website author, never mind website commenter.. Getting people who hate something to talk about and discuss it is a mark of genius marketing. Publicity,,,is everything. Lots of people may even be curious enough to come in to a showroom to look at a CT in person and end up driving out with an S or X or more likely a Y or 3 once they do some math, look at some examples, take a drive, judge the quality for themselves instead of what they read on the internet or what Uncle Billy said at Thanksgiving, and realize Tesla is an EV juggernaut that’s making the vaunted legacy makers look like amateurs, none of which have ever gotten this much free publicity for anything they’ve ever built. Or more accurately, for something they haven’t even really built yet en masse.
Regarding the SUV version of the Rivian it certainly is popular in my area and it wouldn’t surprise me if there are more of them than the truck version at least in my immediate area. From what I’ve read they have been prioritizing S production over T production recently.
I suspect it is likely that Tesla is working on or at least doing the initial planning for a SUV line extension.
Ford is adding a Hybrid version of the Expedition expected to drop for the 2025 MY. Presumably it will use most of the F-150 Hybrid pieces.
An EVpedition won’t be as easy. The biggest problem I see is the fact that the Expedition’s wheelbase is almost 2′ shorter. In the Lightning the pack takes up most of the space between the motors preventing reuse of the pack as is. They should be able to reuse most of the other pieces though, but I do wonder how much battery capacity they can fit in w/o any modifications to the body or the pack hanging to low.
Scout,
Could Ford or Lincoln just put a longer roof and some extra seats on the Lightning chassis rather than adapting the Lightning’s tech into the current Expedition/Navigator as your comment seem to suggest? Wouldn’t that be easier?
I don’t think Ford should call it’s big EV SUV the Expedition either. Maybe bring back the Ranchero or Freestyle nameplates or call it the Grand Explorer. I like Grand Explorer myself. But the Expedition name should die with the internal combustion engine. It always played a distant fifth fiddle behind the Tahoe, Yukon, Suburban, and it’s Navigator sibling. That’s not really a good legacy to transfer over to the electric age. The Navigator should absolutely make the transition to EV’s however.
I guess it is possible, but I don’t know if they would want to spend the money on a new body shell for what is likely to be a low volume model. Seems more likely that they would add a SUV version of the T3 pickup currently under development.
Perhaps the legacy automakers haven’t ever gotten this much free publicity for anything they’ve ever built this century. But I remember GM having huge publicity in the 1980’s for the X-Body, the Fiero, the Allante, and the Saturn brand.
The issue GM had back then wasn’t publicity, it was a failure to meet the expectations of the moment with each of these product launches and not just by a little, but by a lot.
Unless I missed it, no one apparently nominated the Toyota Prius. Second generation was radical in styling, the hybrid powertrain was perfected and entered the mainstream with that car.
The Cyber Truck clearly took some inspiration from the GM dustbuster vans.
Exactly, and a future Curbside Classic feature article:
“How Hard Can it be to Design a Pickup Truck?”
I’m surprized no one mentioned the below, perhaps because to our 2023-eyes it looks like many sedans made anythime between the late 80s to the late 00s. But this car was ushered to the market in 1967, and other than the DS – which used a very different styling language – there was nothing on the roads remotely like it. Forget the rotary dead-end, this was the prototype of all 3-box sedans until very recently – many years before such shapes became common.
Agreed the Cybertruck gets a reaction. It’s out of norm enough to cause reaction. But maybe that’s why he did it. Either way: I’m loving the specs that are being delivered. Also your humor and wit 😀