That’s quite exactly what they were going for actually. Lo-res graphic to represent hi-tech. Somewhat like military camo is now pixelated for no practical reason.

Just because you don’t know why digital camouflage exists doesn’t mean it has no practical purpose.

Neither pixellation nor digitization contributes to the camouflaging effect. The pixellated style, however, simplifies design and eases printing on fabric, compared to traditional patterns. While digital patterns are becoming widespread, critics maintain that the pixellated look is a question of fashion rather than function.

Simplified design and easier printing sounds like a very practical purpose.

At the cost of drip? Very much not worth.

Drip or drown, baby 😎

That paragraph seems to contradict itself. “ease of printing” is a functional concern, even if it doesn’t affect the camo while in use.

Neither pixellation nor digitization contributes to the camouflaging effect. The pixellated style, however, simplifies design and eases printing on fabric, compared to traditional patterns. While digital patterns are becoming widespread, critics maintain that the pixellated look is a question of fashion rather than function.[7]

Just quoting the relevant part.

nah, you’re totally off topic. I was responding to looks. sorry for distracting you away from looks by mentioning practicality. on practicality, the reason for the cybertruck panels is they’re stainless steel. on looks, you didn’t reply. since you avoided that topic, i suspect you’re another sheep who jumped on the “ugly” bandwagon and aren’t able to say much more than “ugly ugly ugly”. no interest.

Very interesting, but after reading, it specifically states that it’s the multi scaling that has a function on the battlefield, which can be implemented through all shapes basically.

The ‘digital’ (square) patterning is most certainly either cost saving measures, fashion, or both.

“The pixellated style, however, simplifies design and eases printing on fabric, compared to traditional patterns. While digital patterns are becoming widespread, critics maintain that the pixellated look is a question of fashion rather than function.[7]”

Now I’m aware you just stated that ‘it had a practical purpose’ but your tone and framing suggests to me something other than ‘its easier and cheaper to manufacture’.

I would usually give a lot of credit to someone trying something different, but I’d drive a 1971 Ford Pinto before I ever intentionally get within photographable proximity to a Cybertruck.

And you’d be safer for it.

The danger of the Pinto was exaggerated. Do a web search for the You’re Wrong About episode on the Pinto. The investigative reporting on the Pinto’s safety flaw used a demonstration rigged to explode. Other subcompact cars had a similar dangling fuel tank, and the number of actual Pinto explosions in the field was actually rarer than those of its competitors.

And ironically, the danger of teslas is underreported and downplayed. Don’t you still burn a lithium-firey death if the electricity goes out during a car fire? There have been many people that have died from that insane intentional design already…

WOW! TIL!

It was all fueled by a law firm, who picked out Ford because they had the most cash at the time.

Same thing with AUDI “sudden acceleration”.

then again with Toyota “sudden acceleration” , but Toyota had black boxes that proved the car’s accelerators were being pressed. Since then, every car company tracks data to prevent lawsuits.

Super gluing pieces onto the vehicle is certainly something different. But I think there’s something different should have a reason behind it. XD

Indeed.

Still shocking he never hired a designer. Even an idiot fraud like Elizabeth Holmes knew to do that.

Still shocking he never hired a designer

Cyber truck designer was Franz von Holzhausen.

When the cybertruck was first announced, I actually appreciated how different it looked, but its performance and association to Musk has entirely ruined any hope of me ever liking a low-poly vehicle ever again.

I thought it would look unique in a geeky way. Instead it looks unique in a Nazi way. That’s not my vibe. Killed my enthusiasm for owning something that I knew most people would hate. Also costing twice as much and being a piece of shit.

I think it has plenty of reasons to not like it that are completely non political. The other stuff is just icing on the cake.

I saw a concept car and expected to see a radically different version on the road. As a design study, I thought it had potential.

I know this sounds really pathetic to say out loud now that it’s a confirmed flop, but I never liked the look.

it never had the makings of a varsity athlete

I didn’t really care about the look. Then I saw one in the flesh in a car show. The thing just looked strange up close. It was cordoned off too unlike the hundreds of other cars there. I guess they didn’t want people touching it because lots of greasy fingers and stainless steel body don’t mix well.

When the cybertruck was first announced, I actually appreciated how different it looked

Yeah, same here. I usually like weird looking forms for ordinary objects. The cybertruck counts.

Even disregarding the emotional association to Musk, which is nigh impossible, the engineering of the car makes it suck to hell, because that’s all Musk’s decision he forced.

It looks like something a 6 year old designed on a 1980s PC.

It looks like my drawing of a car as a 4 year old brought to reality

If only Americans applied this level of critical thought to every pickup truck they love to buy.

You just know this is the one car that Elon designed personally, like that episode of the Simpsons where Homer bankrupts his brothers car company, only real life doesn’t actually punish idiocy.

I’d actually drive a Homer.