Why would it require two spots? It's not as long or wide as an equivalent F-150 so if your theory is really that no one commuting to downtown manhattan should use a full size pickup truck I completely agree. Granted I didn't see you decrying the non-EV trucks so I can only assume your concern is disingenuous.

As for your "safety" concerns, which are likely also disingenuous given your "size" concerns above, we have already proven to you ICE vehicles are significantly less likely to catch on fire, which would be the primary concern with parking vehicles together in a confined space.

MaxPower said:

---

Why would it require two spots? It's not as long or wide as an equivalent F-150 so if your theory is really that no one commuting to downtown manhattan should use a full size pickup truck I completely agree. Granted I didn't see you decrying the non-EV trucks so I can only assume your concern is disingenuous.

As for your "safety" concerns, which are likely also disingenuous given your "size" concerns above, we have already proven to you ICE vehicles are significantly less likely to catch on fire, which would be the primary concern with parking vehicles together in a confined space.

---

TBF, it's not Nortex, it's the insurance companies.

Cybertruck is in the same GVWR category (Class 2b) as the F-250, Silverado/Sierra 2500, Ram 2500, etc. Does the insurance carrier prevent Class 2b trucks from parking in the garage, or just the Cybertruck?

That "article" is just people posting a few personal experiences. Nobody actually knows if it's the insurance companies and, as is also stated, that doesn't make sense given they let other more expensive cars park there. Much more likely the garages don't want large vehicles taking up space and use insurance as an excuse when people ask.

MaxPower said:

---

That "article" is just people posting a few personal experiences. Nobody actually knows if it's the insurance companies and, as is also stated, that doesn't make sense given they let other more expensive cars park there. Much more likely the garages don't want large vehicles taking up space and use insurance as an excuse when people ask.

---

techno-ag said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

Why would it require two spots? It's not as long or wide as an equivalent F-150 so if your theory is really that no one commuting to downtown manhattan should use a full size pickup truck I completely agree. Granted I didn't see you decrying the non-EV trucks so I can only assume your concern is disingenuous.

As for your "safety" concerns, which are likely also disingenuous given your "size" concerns above, we have already proven to you ICE vehicles are significantly less likely to catch on fire, which would be the primary concern with parking vehicles together in a confined space.

---

TBF, it's not Nortex, it's the insurance companies.

---

All the bluster aside, insurance companies are really good at measuring risk. Their livelihood depends on accurate estimates.

Which insurance companies aren't letting Cybertrucks park in a garage?

The insurance companies holding the policies on garages Atul Sharma wants to park in, apparently.

So, zero. Thanks.

6th cybertruck recall of the year!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/recalls/2024/11/13/cybertruck-recall-tesla-sixth/76267486007/

Teslag said:

---

So, zero. Thanks.

---

So you must have different theory on why Atul can't park, lets hear it. This'll be good.

My theory is the garages are full of **** and don't want large vehicles in there.

Teslag said:

---

My theory is the garages are full of **** and don't want large vehicles in there.

---

Resulting in the guy not being able to park?

Yes

Drag strip in Australia bans EV's. Makes sense as well, not just parking garages.

Quote:

---

Matt P. wrote today about a dragstrip Down Under that has banned EVs over fire-safety concerns.

This, to me, is a mild bummer since some EVs can be darn fast in a straight line. Maybe not a ID.Buzz, but what about a Mustang Mach-E GT? The Kia EV6 GT? A Hyundai Ioniq 5 N? And so forth and so on.
As the EV market grows, some buyers will want to take them to the track.

That said, the fire-safety concerns are real. There's no evidence to suggest EVs catch fire more often than ICE vehicles, but when they do, the fires are hard to put out. So, how should tracks proceed?

To be clear, I think larger tracks that are used to hosting the occasional IndyCar/NASCAR/IMSA race will be fine. Road America, Watkins Glen, Laguna Seca and the like will be fine. So, too, will dragstrips that host NHRA events. They probably have enough resources on hand to handle an EV fire during the local "run what ya brung" night.

But smaller tracks, I am not so sure.

---

Again, this supports my bigger point that it is not the frequency of fires that matter, but that they are a different risk category/type of event, and not just in parking garages/drag strips. Probably especially in 'plaid mode' (as an example) where the battery is depleted largely in a minute or less and the consequent massive heat generation.

The only limitation I have seen to this was the silly Fisker Ocean model I think where there was a software limit, as to the number of times it could be placed in it's 'drag race' mode for the life of the vehicle (not the battery, but the vehicle!).

Dammit that was my favorite drag strip in Australia. Guess I will have to go to one of the thousands of others in the country I live.

MaxPower said:

---

That "article" is just people posting a few personal experiences. Nobody actually knows if it's the insurance companies and, as is also stated, that doesn't make sense given they let other more expensive cars park there. Much more likely the garages don't want large vehicles taking up space and use insurance as an excuse when people ask.

---

I'd expect the EVangelist community to flush this out in short order if it's not true.



It's apparently two owners, not just Atul, but I have no idea really of any more specifics, not real interested in digging into it further. Claim was over the cost of the vehicle, but it's not really the most expensive vehicle to buy. Car washes in NJ similarly not willing to wash them is a little odd to me.

Curiously follows the lib playbook.

1. Deny something is happening. (EVangelists are here)

2. Admit it's happening but insist it's a good thing.

Flew in to Houston this weekend and rented a car where you can walk up and pick any car for the same price. They had a 4xE rubicon so me and my sons hopped in that one.

Battery is 0% but that's too be expected. Why would they charge it at the National. I charged it all nigh (14.5 hours) and this morning hopped in to go grab some coffee.

100% battery = 27 miles on all electric? Wtf is that? So, I get in Hybrid mode and I drive 17.6 miles round trip for my coffee. No flooring it or speeding. 6am, listening to a podcast, enjoying a quiet drive before the kids get up kind of ride.

I got back with 27% battery life left. What the **** is this? It's definitely not an electric vehicle. Can it even be called a hybrid? For $62k, seriously wtf is this?

Not real surprising but it sounds like something is wrong with that vehicle. Hybrids can make a lot of sense to many folks when looking at models/fuel ratings but in reality there are still a lot of engineering challenges that make them costlier to own/have more wear on their engines even than regular ICE vehicles.



Rental car companies keep dumping their EV fleets but I think they see limited maintenance costs likely with hybrids as they generally won't charge them no matter if plug in or not, owning for less than 12 months, and if the battery is depleted it will just make it harder for the renters to use both powertrains to blast around town in them. I'd certainly never consider a hybrid former-fleet vehicle as a purchase.

Plug in hybrids only make sense if gas is really expensive and you do frequent cross country trips. Even then an ICE or hybrid make more sense to me.

GM lays off 1000 thanks to EVs.

https://apnews.com/article/general-motors-layoffs-cost-cutting-5e2cc6f8a3210ea364d670a1902a7c65

techno-ag said:

---

Curiously follows the lib playbook.

---

Your so cluelesss. You have spent years on this thread and literally rebut every single thing positive about EV/Tesla regardless from anyone's positive perspective while probably never meaningfully driving a Tesla.

But now that you equate Tesla owners to the Lib playbook is myopic and laughable. Libs hate Tesla, you hate tesla. Libs rebut everything positive about DJT, you rebut everything positive about EVs.

You sound like Sunny Holstein. She Hates Tesla and Musk too... You two are cut from the same cloth. You both just don't see it. Admit that you voted for Biden who put in all of the Inventives.

Did you know that the incentives were pushed by the Big 3 esp GM? Did you know that Musk has always been and just came out against all the EV subsidies and EV infrastructure plan from Biden? Did you know he is with Trump on letting EVs compete on their own merit? Did you know Musk think all incentives should go away including for ICE?

Do you not realize that if not for the Gov, the big 3 would be bankrupt?

Quote:

---

I have no idea really of any more specifics

---

You don't say…

techno-ag said:

---

GM lays off 1000 thanks to EVs.

https://apnews.com/article/general-motors-layoffs-cost-cutting-5e2cc6f8a3210ea364d670a1902a7c65

---

That's not what the article says at all. It was 1,000 white collar overhead jobs out of 130,000. And never said it was due to EV's.

I see we are still in the throwing **** against the wall phase this morning.

GAC06 said:

---

Plug in hybrids only make sense if gas is really expensive and you do frequent cross country trips. Even then an ICE or hybrid make more sense to me.

---

I really don't understand PIHs.

You get to deal with ICE and EV maintenance issues. The only big advantage is road trips over 400 miles. I can drive from CS to Midland and spend 30 minutes charging while I grab a bite/bathroom. So maybe I spend an extra 15 minutes vs a gas station.

Teslag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

GM lays off 1000 thanks to EVs.

https://apnews.com/article/general-motors-layoffs-cost-cutting-5e2cc6f8a3210ea364d670a1902a7c65

---

That's not what the article says at all. It was 1,000 white collar overhead jobs out of 130,000. And never said it was due to EV's.

I see we are still in the throwing **** against the wall phase this morning.

---

All the Big 3 are getting crushed. China, once a driver of profits, is now a dead market for ICE. They don't compete well in any other country. Their only real profit centers are in the US primarily fleet/Trucks.

I don't see how they will survive without continued Gov handouts.

Medaggie said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Plug in hybrids only make sense if gas is really expensive and you do frequent cross country trips. Even then an ICE or hybrid make more sense to me.

---

I really don't understand PIHs.

You get to deal with ICE and EV maintenance issues. The only big advantage is road trips over 400 miles. I can drive from CS to Midland and spend 30 minutes charging while I grab a bite/bathroom. So maybe I spend an extra 15 minutes vs a gas station.

---

Agreed. It's an ICE with the added weight of a crappy very short range EV set up. Or it's a crappy short range EV with the added weight and maintenance of an ICE.

So it's the spork of vehicles

I'd be interested to see safety data on the tradeoff between sturdier vehicle construction and more difficult extrication.

Firefighters training on Cybertruck's windows. Took 3 swings for the first crack to form, and 12+ to actually break through. Perfect car for the apocalypse, no Zombie is breaking in 🧟‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/osGksX26DV

— Owen Sparks (@OwenSparks_) September 20, 2024

On the off chance your battery ignites after a crash it sure would suck to be 12+ axe swings away from safety. The Zombie apocalypse comment is foolish but typical

Then don't buy one

If you're trapped inside a burning vehicle what are the odds you'd live long enough for a firefighter to arrive with an axe? Probably about as likely as a zombie apocalypse.

Would be a nice deterrent for thieves though.

Teslag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

GM lays off 1000 thanks to EVs.

https://apnews.com/article/general-motors-layoffs-cost-cutting-5e2cc6f8a3210ea364d670a1902a7c65

---

That's not what the article says at all. It was 1,000 white collar overhead jobs out of 130,000. And never said it was due to EV's.

I see we are still in the throwing **** against the wall phase this morning.

---

It's like the claims that ICE have gone up because of losses in EVs. I would love to hear why automakers wouldn't try to get the maximum combination of price and volume from any vehicle independent of losses in another part of the business.

This is like the Dems saying price gouging is the cause of inflations because company leaders woke up one day and said let's start gouging which means at other times they say let's stop gouging and drop prices because we want to be nice people.

GAC06 said:

---

If you're trapped inside a burning vehicle what are the odds you'd live long enough for a firefighter to arrive with an axe? Probably about as likely as a zombie apocalypse.

Would be a nice deterrent for thieves though.

---

Sure, but if he's already arrived to the scene when it combusts and you're another 12 axe swings from safety, your vehicle is going to be your cremation oven when it didn't have to be.

I wouldnt be surprised to learn the cybertruck construction style is still safer overall, but thats a horrifying way to go.

Always drive around with your window open if that's a personal concern. Problem solved