Lots of interesting comments and perspectives in this thread, from the judgmental "trucks are stupid" group (typically outside the US) to "this thing is ugly" reactionaries and everything in between. This is what I love (and hate) about HN. Yet, if you stop and use it as stimulus for though, HN turns out to be a good way to force you to reevaluate your mental models...sometimes.

My first reaction to this truck was along the lines of "this is the very definition of ugly". From there it moved to "well, that was stupid" (the glass). And, slowly, once past the shock, it morphed into "it seems to have lots of practical features". Now I want to see one in person and explore it a bit.

A few random thoughts:

We are in the market to purchase two vehicles within the next, say, 12 months, with one of them likely in the next four months or less. We thought we would go electric...until the fires here in California caused us to rethink things.

Simple issue: The infrastructure for conventional vehicles is ubiquitous. You don't even have to think about the availability of energy at all. Simple example, yesterday one of our cars was down to 7 miles of range left in the fuel tank. This wasn't a big deal at all. There are easily twenty gas stations within that driving distance, if not more. And topping-off takes ten minutes or less total time.

From my perspective, and some might disagree, at the current time the weakest point of any electric vehicle, Tesla or otherwise, is the --and I think I can use this word-- fact that they cannot be relied upon during emergencies. The infrastructure isn't mature and ubiquitous enough to match the degree of reliance one can place on IC vehicles. If your life and that of your family depends on being able to travel, electric vehicles are a bad idea.

Because of this we went from really wanting to transition in to electrics (we even installed a 13 kW solar system in preparation for this transition) to now thinking timing isn't quite right.

A brief comment for those disparaging the "American obsession with large vehicles". I'll just say you likely lack context. I don't own a truck, I've always been as sports car guy. I've probably owned more sports cars than anything else. However, most (all) US cities are very different from European cities. There are no problems with the size of roads, all the way down to business districts and neighborhoods. I've traveled all over Europe and other parts of the world. And, yes, in a lot of the cities and towns I have visited US-style SUV's and trucks would make no sense whatsoever.

Don't think Americans are ignorant or less sophisticated because they are buying SUV's and trucks. If they were not practical there wouldn't be a market for them. It's the same for what we call minivans --not sure if the same term is used in Europe. We have a Toyota Sienna with 220,000 miles on it. We bought it new. It is incredibly practical in the context of family life, home renovations, dealing with our three German Shepherd dogs, going to the lake, going camping, loading it up with friends and family for travel. Form follows function AND needs, and in the US trucks and SUV --large and small-- exist because they are practical, useful and deliver value.

Sure, it is disconcerting to see just one person effectively commuting in a truck. The perspective here is that not everyone is a software engineer, most people have limited financial resources and they can't buy both an efficient small "green-er" vehicle and the truck or SUV they need for family and home use. So, again, they make a choice based on form, function and needs, and if a truck, minivan or SUV make sense, well, that's what they buy, and that's what they drive every day.

Back to Tesla...

One possible perspective on this is that of what I am generally going to put under the umbrella of fiduciary responsibility.

One could rightly argue that coming out with something like this is a breach of that responsibility to investors. Tesla has excellent technology and could become a massive company. The truck market can support millions of units per year in sales just in the US (about 2.5 to 3 million per year). This radical design is, from that perspective, irresponsible. It will capture a very, very small percentage of the 250,000+ trucks per month sold on average in the US. It's a shocker, like the Hummer, but it isn't going to make a dent on overall truck sales. If anything it might signal that Elon isn't interested in growing Tesla beyond a certain level.

These are not decisions you make if you want to beat the other guys at their own game (or even redefine the game). In an industry where historical P/E ratios are in the 10 to 15 range, Tesla will eventually have to face that hard cold reality. Sure, today investors ignore this but, at the end of the day, when everyone is making electric cars and batteries, Tesla might not be able to escape the fact that it will be just another car company. In that context, I think this truck might be an irresponsible waste of an important competitive advantage.

Two of the worst things you can waste in life are time and trust. This offering is guaranteed to waste a ton of time. Years. And trust also. Anyone who wants a "real" or, let's just say "traditional" truck is going to ignore Tesla and assume they are just crazy. There are 250,000 people making a decision to buy a truck EVERY MONTH, and the VAST majority of them are going to laugh at Tesla and move on. It will be year, maybe even a decade, before anyone looks at Tesla as a serious truck company. So, yeah, time and trust wasted, unnecessarily.

I need to see this Tesla thing (that would have been a good name "Thing") but I don't think I am buying one. Next iteration, perhaps.