- First Name
- luke
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
- Messages
- 373
- Reaction score
- 312
- Location
- Indialantic FL
- Vehicles
- 2m AWD Cybertruck
- Occupation
- retired
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1
YOU named it after the design, not the engineering. "Come on MAN!" WTF!
I absolutely hated the "Thing" when it came out in the 1970's. It looked like nobody cared how it looked. (Unfortunately they didn't care about safety either.) The Thing was "engineered" to be a cheap easy convertible. Design was an afterthought.
And then you made this "Thing." It looks like something a 5000 ton, stainless steel-eating wombat left in the woods ( https://www.popsci.com/wombat-cubic-poop/ ). It really really looks like no time or effort went into the design.
And now let me clarify what I said. YOU taught me the difference in design and engineering. (Or maybe YOu didn't, but I read a tweet, or a thread, or an article, or news release, or a podcast, or perhaps on a bathroom wall) But the source was supposedly YOU. And "YOU" explained the difference.
YOU said that engineering creates something that does something, and that design was done to manage how something interacts with one's senses. How it looks and feels... or smells. (Which is why I now understand why perfume companies "design" perfumes, and clothing styles are designed.) I did not understand the difference till YOU made the point of explaining it to me. You engineered the Tesla Utility Vehicle to do what it does (and yeah, I know you aren't done upgrading and engineering.). And the shape and materials are what engineering dictated. Form from function. And MAN do I love anything that is just as honest as it can be. So as ugly as this thing is it is not being ugly on purpose. And once I understood why it was the shape it is I loved it. Not because of how it looks, but because it is what it is without all the bullshit. There is so much in this "Thing" that it really doesn't have room for "design". Or it would get stupid fast, like the car Homer Simpson got to make. YOU had em engineer this thing. You had areas you wanted them to go, and "make it pretty" was not on the list until after all the real things were done.
So that's just the prologue....
Look Big Ee, I was not happy with your "designed" name. And I have very good reason. Another member of this board, "BarsCarsMars"?, gave me the "aha" moment. YOU named the car after how it looked...and how something looks is ,according to you, part of the design.
So the effort that went into this vehicle was close to 100% engineering, and yet you named it after its design; How it looks.
This worried me (it still does quite a bit). YOU see I saw the emphasis on engineering. On how it does so much, and the emphasis was all about what it can do, and how people will buy it for what it does. And the design is incidental.
It isn't "cyber." I looked up the definition of cyber. And honestly, what little bit of cyber is in this vehicle will be in every Tesla vehicle. But you named it after a design aspect? How it looks. Completely ignoring what it does. I Understand. I guess... no I don't. I feel like you went off the tracks. It is a utility vehicle supreme. Tesla Utility Vehicle.
Should it be limited to the name, "Truck"? Come on, An El Camino has a greater % of "truck" than this vehicle. This vehicle is all about a freedom from what were past vehicles. It doesn't suck like a truck. Putting "truck" as part of its official name is just wrong. It definitely is going to be used more as an SUV than a truck. Actually it is more like a monster Hatchback with a roller door instead of a hatch.
Please come on...
OH first wait! I also heard you are not going to put a physical "badge" of name on it so now I have some hope. When I heard that I did a little mental hopscotching, and came away with, "Perhaps he sees that this Thing is so much more than a truck that it really isn't a truck. To call it a truck would be a misnomer./mistake." Thank you Thank you Thank you for at least making it so I won't have to see that ridiculous name when I look at my Tesla Utility Vehicle.
So please, come on, rename it... unless you sincerely are doing it from the "design" angle...but even then i don't really feel it.
I absolutely hated the "Thing" when it came out in the 1970's. It looked like nobody cared how it looked. (Unfortunately they didn't care about safety either.) The Thing was "engineered" to be a cheap easy convertible. Design was an afterthought.
And then you made this "Thing." It looks like something a 5000 ton, stainless steel-eating wombat left in the woods ( https://www.popsci.com/wombat-cubic-poop/ ). It really really looks like no time or effort went into the design.
And now let me clarify what I said. YOU taught me the difference in design and engineering. (Or maybe YOu didn't, but I read a tweet, or a thread, or an article, or news release, or a podcast, or perhaps on a bathroom wall) But the source was supposedly YOU. And "YOU" explained the difference.
YOU said that engineering creates something that does something, and that design was done to manage how something interacts with one's senses. How it looks and feels... or smells. (Which is why I now understand why perfume companies "design" perfumes, and clothing styles are designed.) I did not understand the difference till YOU made the point of explaining it to me. You engineered the Tesla Utility Vehicle to do what it does (and yeah, I know you aren't done upgrading and engineering.). And the shape and materials are what engineering dictated. Form from function. And MAN do I love anything that is just as honest as it can be. So as ugly as this thing is it is not being ugly on purpose. And once I understood why it was the shape it is I loved it. Not because of how it looks, but because it is what it is without all the bullshit. There is so much in this "Thing" that it really doesn't have room for "design". Or it would get stupid fast, like the car Homer Simpson got to make. YOU had em engineer this thing. You had areas you wanted them to go, and "make it pretty" was not on the list until after all the real things were done.
So that's just the prologue....
Look Big Ee, I was not happy with your "designed" name. And I have very good reason. Another member of this board, "BarsCarsMars"?, gave me the "aha" moment. YOU named the car after how it looked...and how something looks is ,according to you, part of the design.
So the effort that went into this vehicle was close to 100% engineering, and yet you named it after its design; How it looks.
This worried me (it still does quite a bit). YOU see I saw the emphasis on engineering. On how it does so much, and the emphasis was all about what it can do, and how people will buy it for what it does. And the design is incidental.
It isn't "cyber." I looked up the definition of cyber. And honestly, what little bit of cyber is in this vehicle will be in every Tesla vehicle. But you named it after a design aspect? How it looks. Completely ignoring what it does. I Understand. I guess... no I don't. I feel like you went off the tracks. It is a utility vehicle supreme. Tesla Utility Vehicle.
Should it be limited to the name, "Truck"? Come on, An El Camino has a greater % of "truck" than this vehicle. This vehicle is all about a freedom from what were past vehicles. It doesn't suck like a truck. Putting "truck" as part of its official name is just wrong. It definitely is going to be used more as an SUV than a truck. Actually it is more like a monster Hatchback with a roller door instead of a hatch.
Please come on...
OH first wait! I also heard you are not going to put a physical "badge" of name on it so now I have some hope. When I heard that I did a little mental hopscotching, and came away with, "Perhaps he sees that this Thing is so much more than a truck that it really isn't a truck. To call it a truck would be a misnomer./mistake." Thank you Thank you Thank you for at least making it so I won't have to see that ridiculous name when I look at my Tesla Utility Vehicle.
So please, come on, rename it... unless you sincerely are doing it from the "design" angle...but even then i don't really feel it.
Last edited:
