A basic usable truck sounds good to me, but the price seems high for bare bones and the range seems equally bare bones.
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
143 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
38765 readers
307 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't know how the purchasing power differs across the pond but converting dollarydoos to pounds that sounds like a bargain for a new functional EV
I guess but I saw a used Volt on sale for under $4,000 and this is from a brand I've never heard of.
Time will tell if it's a good price or not I suppose, if it's a really solid truck then I guess it's close enough to a fair price.
Volt or Bolt? Volt is a hybrid.
If Bolt, I'm guessing that was a very old one that will get like 50km of range.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Personally I think the telco is more compelling. If it wasn't american i would strongly consider it.
Looks cool but it's also twice as expensive.
It's also 20ish" shorter, seats 5 with a 5 foot bed, can carry 4x8 sheets flat between the wheel wells (and tailgate closed if the midgate is open), tows a bit over 3 tons, has an AWD option, and the base range beats the maxed out range on the Slate. They aren't really competitors beyond "small truck." Telo is absolutely maxed out for it's size, Slate is as cheap as cheap can go.
load more comments
(2 replies)
No paint because you're injection molding body panels? Sounds good.
No stamping? How are you getting away with that? Are they just outsourcing the stamping for frame parts? There's no way this thing doesn't require stamped frame components.
Tbh, this feels like vaporware. I'll believe it when I see them actually being delivered.
My first thought as well. Feeding on the anti-Tesla hype to gain some clout and probably funding.
I think the non-stamping is the body panels. They would still have to have a stamped metal frame to meet the S rating wouldn't they?
They make it sound like not having stamping is helping them by not requiring expensive machines and a factory with a high ceiling. I'm betting they're outsourcing the stamping. I'm also betting that they won't ever deliver a truck.
load more comments
(7 replies)
this strikes me as a fascinating idea--with a couple of eyebrow-raising backers--that is probably going to flop spectacularly because it's too minimalistic to the point of just being cheapskate
I'd imagine the $20K price is for a model so basic many people won't want it. it will be interesting to see what the price is for a model most people would consider an acceptable basic car or truck.
That design also enables a low-cost approach to manufacturing that has caught the eye of major investors, reportedly including Jeff Bezos. It's been engineered and will be manufactured in America, but is this extreme simplification too much for American consumers?
I'm more worried about the cheapness and corner cutting.
And backed by Bezos
No paint? Sure. No touchscreen? Good.
..No radio? That's going to absolutely murder their sales.
You know what, people can just add their own bluetooth speaker.
I think it's fine.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Many will consider this a cost-cutting step too far, but the interior was designed for ease of upgrading, with easy mounting space for anything from a simple soundbar to a full sound system.
This isn’t for everyone, but if it’s easily accessible, I’d have no problem installing a basic CarPlay head unit and speakers in an afternoon.
If they are targeting work trucks - which is where most bare bones trucks go - the buyers already have a bluetooth radio they use all day.
Yeah I mean they should include a standard double-DIN radio with Android Auto. Or at least make it optional. Using a Bluetooth speaker is ridiculous and will sound awful. And the battery will probably explode being it's kept in a hot vehicle...
load more comments
(2 replies)
I found the specs a bit interesting. 52.7 kWh battery and a curb weight of 3,600 lbs is nearly identical to the Chevy Bolt, but this only has a range of 150 miles instead of 240. Is it really that much less efficient? The only thing I can think of is the aerodynamics, but that's a 40% difference.
As I understand it, the aerodynamics can be no joke on EVs. The acceleration is very efficient, there's very efficient regenerative braking, and an object in motion just continues in motion until there's a force. That means drag is pretty much where your whole battery charge goes. (I'm not sure how much tire flexing accounts for exactly)
For an example off the top of my head, the Arrow concept car manages 500km by not having side mirrors. Compare that to an ICE engine which wastes most of the fuel energy as heat, but to a widely varying degree depending on design and implemented energy recovery features.
This is generally in line with ice, the drivetrain efficiencies anymore are in the high 90%s (applies to ev too), so from engine out you are losing basically everything to drag.
Yeah, friction losses scale with angular velocity and not torque, and moving a ton of metal takes torque. Don't forget the braking losses, though, unless it's a hybrid of some kind. There's no turning movement back into fuel the way you can turn it back into electricity.
The point is if you're looking good range, there's several dials that can be adjusted on an ICE car, related to the prime mover. On an EV, drag is the start and finish of the considerations (unless you're going to move it onto rails, maybe). And of course range is a huge deal, because a liter of secondary cell can't come close to the energy density of a liter of petrol and 38 liters of ambient air.
This is one thing I don't get for the complaints about EV's: Drag and towing. You have the same losses in ICE, just that the ICE powerplant is so much worse 'before' the drive
load more comments
(2 replies)
Also, the "(after federal incentives)" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The basic option for the 2023 Bolt comes out to about $20K after federal incentives, but you get way more range and a bunch of those "luxury" features this is missing. Considering how cheap low-end smart phones are, I have a hard time imagining that infotainment systems actually add more than 1-2% of the cost of the vehicle. Feels more like a type of virtue signal than a real cost-saving measure.
Your vehicle not being yet another surveillance vector can be a selling point.
I mean, I guess, but that's only a selling point to the small number of people without smartphones, which isn't a large enough group to make it a sound business strategy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I generally like the idea of smartphones as replacement for radio/nav but only if no specific app is required to do anything important with the car itself. Because then you are dependent on the manufacturer keeping this app up to date.
But the price for this thing is too high when incentives are excluded
Would definitely buy one of these. I miss having a truck, but I only need one occasionally for the occasional need to haul something that won't fit in my car (e.g. Lowe's trips). I also really dislike the "smartphone on wheels" aspect of pretty much all current EVs.
Plus, I hate the infotainment systems so I would be happy to roll my own.
Though I do wonder if it has a backup camera/screen. Aren't those required nowadays?
Touchscreens are the worst interface in a vehicle. But yes, Amercian law says all automobiles must have a backup camera installed as of 2018. I need and use a truck but I do just fine with a smaller Tacoma, which these days are basically a full size truck of yester-yore. These look nice, like the UTE style; but the 150 mile range would be an issue for me.
That's what I thought (re: backup cameras), and someone else mentioned the gauge cluster is a digital screen which switches to the backup camera view). In my case, 150 miles (round trip ) would be just around the upper edge of my use cases, though 15-20 would be more average.
which these days are basically a full size truck of yester-yore
Makes me miss my old 2003 Ranger. It was right where I needed a truck to be, size-wise.
load more comments
(1 replies)
According to the articles I read about it, the gauges are a digital screen which changes to the backup camara when in reverse.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Saying they are cutting the EV incentive is just another form of market manipulation.
They want people to panic buy, just like they did with cell phones, just like the stock market. It's all manipulation.
USA offering this trash b/c they still can't compete with BYD.
Can it tow?
Probably about as much as a Civic
Range is 150 miles so not holding my breath
I would still like one, but I'd wish it had the utility of a kei truck at least.
I pulled a U-Haul trailer with my Civic from Virginia to Oregon. Only took 2½ days, though the final few hours were harrowing. Maps back then didn't so much express topography, so the trailer was actually pushing me down ... I likely went through a year of brake pads in six hours.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
So they finally made a car for minimalists.
I really like this concept. Definitely catches my attention. But I think minimalists are in the minority these days.
What would you prefer, this for $20k, or a 6 year old truck with 50k miles and all the features for $20k? Most cheap people prefer the latter
I don't disagree about what most people want. Personally, I don't really care for the features, so I'm an outlier. The one thing I do miss on my 25-year-old Saturn is cruise control.
Plastic panels are awesome, BTW. 25 years and zero door dings.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›