@@codeine1717 It isn't an opinion. He is right. It is like comparing two phone's water resistance with chucking one phone in to a pool while having the other be rained on. Sure they're testing the same thing but in an entirely different way.
who compare tank vs buss or truck vs van is same? or steel vs aluminium is same?> for me winnner and best i trust rivian the best and good company humble guy low profile not like fail elon dangerous ev ever see in my life
If you’re comparing the two, why would you repeatedly show the Cybertruck on a full frontal impact and the R1T on a front corner impact? Because you’re biased.
@@4DriveTime So then why even make the video? I was waiting for actual similar tests and stopped it at the 1:20 mark when I realized you had no intentions of comparing apples to apples.
Even more videos incorrectly comparing the Cybertruck's Full-Overlap to completely different tests at different speeds. You can't "compare" a full-overlap to a small overlap, you also can't compare a NHTSA MDB side impact to an IIHS MDB side impact. There is too much that is wrong here.
@TRIPONCODEINE I don't support or favor any manufacturer, just making a statement about the incorrect comparison of completely different tests that yield completely different results. It's okay if you're uneducated about automotive safety, it's never too late to learn.
Completely incomparable tests. I would be interested to see the readouts of g-forces on the occupants of the cybertruck, the whole idea of crumple zones is to absorb the forces of the impact, not pass them onto the passengers
Yes, a video from Europe proved this out. The Tesla imposed much higher forces on the dummy, esp. excessive backwards neck flexion. He did and overlay video. It is a dramatic difference, quite shocking.
And the vehicle is a full write off regardless… so what’s the point of having a minimal crumple zone? It’s not like the crashed Cybertruck can be repaired…
Not even comparable. I'd like to see the ct do a front corner impact test like the other trucks did instead of a full front Impact . Let's see the damage
Comparing a Telsa full barrier crash to another vehicle (Rivian) performing a moderate overlap test is idiotic. The moderate overlap test the Rivian is shown in is exponentially more demanding. The 35 MPH full barrier (Tesla shown) crash is an archaic test . The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have moved on to more real-world tests: the small overlap and moderate overlap. These are done at 40 MPH; that's approximately 35% more force than a test at 35 MPH. These two tests represent scenarios how cars crash in the real world and are much more challenging than an old fashioned (full) barrier crash. A full barrier crash is done by manufacturers because that is what the NHTSA/DOT requires. IIHS doesn't even do barrier tests any more as they are irrelevant compared to the results of overlaps tests. So the video Tesla released just proves they passed the bare government minimum testing to make a production vehicle. Why are the overlap tests more demanding? A moderate overlap concentrates 100% of the crash on only 45% of the vehicles front structure; a small overlap test, on only 15% of the vehicle structure. It takes serious energy management engineering to pass these tests since only part of the car structure is available for energy management, compared to using the entire front of the car to absorb crash forces. For example, any late 1960's car will pass a full barrier test at 30 MPH with only seat belts. A moderate or small overlap test would tear such a car in two. All manufacturers test for small and medium overlap in their own labs (plus a full barrier test at speed higher than 35 MPH) for their own purposes, but few release that footage. So manufacturers wait until IIHS (or Euro NCAP) does these tests as privately funded to accept their accolades or in many cases provide excuses (See the furor over the IIHS test of the Mercedes C class of 2012). As for what is shown in the Tesla video, modern engineering requires a very stiff passenger compartment zone with advanced airbags working with progressive deforming zones optimized for the three types of crashed tests. So you should see little or no door or pillar deformation. As for the rear seat passengers, a vehicle of this price range should have rear seat airbags. They rear wheel behavior? The thing has rear wheel steering, so either the steering mechanism broke or deformed, which meaningless to the result of the test. If Tesla was truly proud of the Cyber Trucks crashworthiness, they would release video of their internal small and moderate overlap test results.
@playlist9y Dude ! That is called Crumble zone. The damage you see that vehicle's sacraficial front end take, is damage that vehicles occupant do not take. In Cybertuck the occupants take the full force of the impact and on high speed impact die from interal injuries caused by the seatbelt and impact force. Seatbelt alone can only save your life of full impact force of about under 50 mph.
What an expert pointed out is your cervical spine in the Tesla is excessively flexed backwards due to the fact it crushes less, to not slow down the impact, as much. You want the impact slowed as much as possible. To prevent snapping spine/paralysis. In the demo live unveiling last week right when the side video cuts off, the neck of the dummy is flexed backwards excessively compared to dummy in trucks that give more in the front. It is so stiff, it actually imposes higher loads on your body. Overlays of side by side shots show the neck flexing much more in the Tesla vehicle.
In the cybertruck you are the crumple zone. The force of that collision looked extremely harsh on the passengers, especially the ones in the back. But hey, for 0.001 second, you could enjoy a Tesla without huge panelgaps in the doors before your neck snaps. Always something to be positive about!
Someone is jumping to conclusion. But that is what the hatera do. Tesla owners don't mind panel gaps as it has more pro than con. Ford being the highest in warranty claims, is surely doing great but oh no panel gaps. Lol
@@nguyep4Lol, the cybertruck will be worse for sure. It was just released and have had no time to break down yet. Tesla cars are in the absolute bottom quality wise, i don’t expect CT to do any better. In fact, there are so many unknowns that I expect it to do worse
Or worse: the Cybertruck uses the opponent vehicle as crumple zone… drastically increasing the chance of killing them instead of having a crumple zone in the Cybertruck. Insurance rates will be astronomical once the Cybertruck is in accidents and kills the opponent vehicle driver at a far higher rate than other trucks.
Your content always stands out to me! By the way, I had an interesting chat with a former Tesla worker who now interviews billionaires. It's another level of fascinating!
"If you have any argument with another car you will win". Meaning if you crush had on with another car it will save you but your Cybertruck won't return the favour. Elon Musk is a very smart
The Cybertruck lacks a proper crumple zone in case of a front impact. Its structure is too rigid, exposing occupants to dangerously high g-forces. Btw, imo it is the ugliest "car" ever built. Like from a dystopian future hostile to man. Awful!
0:13 Freeze Notice the low camera angle used to hide the excessive neck extension that happens. There is another video showing a higher angle, and the neck extension is awful.
That’s an oversimplification of what’s really happening. When the Cybertruck hits another vehicle it transfers a lot more of its energy to the other vehicle leaving you with less impact to deal with. Airbags for you while the other car needs the Jaws of Life. Take your pick. And of course, then there’s Full Self Driving which is already safer than the average driver. Give it a couple years and the entire argument is moot. When you evaluate a Tesla (unlike legacy manufacturers) you need to look at where they’re going, not just take a snapshot of the present.
The jury is out on how the Cybertruck does but we do have to consider that Tesla's entire portfolio of cars is rated extremely high for safety. It seems very unlikely that they would have a vehicle that wouldn't also be extremely safe as that is their entire track record. It could happen but it just seems unlikely. We'll see what NHSTA and the IIHS have to say about it. Right now it's all irrelevant because most people can't even go an buy a Cybertruck today if they wanted and that seems to be the case for at least the next few years.
@@johncahill3644 classic American mindset: “if I’m alright but I’ve killed the occupants of the other car/pedestrian/cyclist, then that’s great!” 🙄 what happens when you crash into something solid or another cybertruck?
The thumbnail is trying to make us believe that the front of the rivian is totally destroyed by a full front crash in comparison with the cybertruck, when it is instead a small overlap. Totally misleading. By the way, the rivian seems to have passed the test with flying colors, with deformation in a non vital zone and a perfect rigidity of the habitacle to protect the legs of the driver. We could not say the same about the cybertruck with no crumple zone..
Even ignoring the fact that those are two differents tests that are without comparison and that comparing them is idiotic... it's scary that the Cybertruck has barely any give, all those forces go into the passengers instead of being dissipated along the car. The Cybertruck looks like a bloody deathtrap.
Until we have the data from the dummies, we really can’t compare anything because the vehicles take different approaches to absorbing impact. The cyber truck just looks less dramatic after damage, but it doesn’t mean that the potential for harm for the occupants is higher or lower.
These tests are done to check the safety of the occupants. Usually the more damage to the vehicle the better impact absorption and better safety for passengers.
Yeah sure... The Cyber Truck didn't crumble which means the occupants absorbed the shock of the impact and all their bones crumbled. How bout you try crashing it like the yellow truck that overlap front crash
I’m no physics major, but I know broken back when I see one. There’s a reason why cars and truck crush in a front impact. Also, a moment of silence for baby in the back. Snapped like a twig.
Why ever are you comparing a 50% overlap test with frontal test? BTW, a well designed vehicle will indeed crumple in front, so their passengers--don't.
So, Cybertuck kills it's passangers on high speed collision. You do know that front of modern cars are intentionally made crumble to cushion and dampen the impact. With rigid steen construction driver and passangers take the full impact. This happens when when a person with no engineering knowledge and no understanding how to make car, designs a car.
There'll be problems with cyber trucks later on. It's more a tank than a car and the design is flawed. If the exterior doesn't absorb as much force like a regular car, it'll be pushed into the interior instead
Clearly you guys don't understand the theory behind vehicle crash safety. You want it to crumple. All this demostrates to us engineers is i wont trust a CT with the safety of my family.
@@Eric-xp1kl 1. Tests where the vehicle hits a wall straight on and across the entire front of the vehicle has been discontinued in many ratings systems as it doesn't represent real world scenarios and is easier to look good in. 2. The cybertruck comes to a sudden stop with minimal deformation compared to most modern vehicles this indicates that it doesn't dampen the impact as much as it should. people inside the vehicle will experience higher g forces which can be fatal by itself 3. The above points indicate basic principles of crash safety have been de prioritised so what else is it missing?
Subscribe now 👉 goo.gl/M7yJtf
Press the little bell ((🔔)) to get notifications
These are two totally different crash tests. Front overlap vs head on isn’t the same comparison.
tesla supporter detected opinion rejected
Tests *
@@codeine1717 It isn't an opinion. He is right. It is like comparing two phone's water resistance with chucking one phone in to a pool while having the other be rained on. Sure they're testing the same thing but in an entirely different way.
who compare tank vs buss or truck vs van is same? or steel vs aluminium is same?> for me winnner and best i trust rivian the best and good company humble guy low profile not like fail elon dangerous ev ever see in my life
@@codeine1717 sorry you are incorrect. the test are different. come on cant we all get along
If you’re comparing the two, why would you repeatedly show the Cybertruck on a full frontal impact and the R1T on a front corner impact? Because you’re biased.
No, of course, I'm not biased because the R1T has not undergone a full frontal crash test
@@4DriveTime
So then why even make the video? I was waiting for actual similar tests and stopped it at the 1:20 mark when I realized you had no intentions of comparing apples to apples.
Well, just remove the first comparison clip from your mind then look at everything else, unless you're bias? Lol
You don’t understand. It’s the same. Rivian is made in the US so it’s trash. Tesla is made in china so it’s legit
@@4DriveTime does cybertruck has any front corner crush test? if yes, then show it instead.
Even more videos incorrectly comparing the Cybertruck's Full-Overlap to completely different tests at different speeds. You can't "compare" a full-overlap to a small overlap, you also can't compare a NHTSA MDB side impact to an IIHS MDB side impact. There is too much that is wrong here.
tesla supporter detected opinion rejected
@TRIPONCODEINE I don't support or favor any manufacturer, just making a statement about the incorrect comparison of completely different tests that yield completely different results. It's okay if you're uneducated about automotive safety, it's never too late to learn.
@@CarPro1993 relax. he, no, it is a comment bot and wrote same text under every comment.
Completely incomparable tests.
I would be interested to see the readouts of g-forces on the occupants of the cybertruck, the whole idea of crumple zones is to absorb the forces of the impact, not pass them onto the passengers
Yes, a video from Europe proved this out. The Tesla imposed much higher forces on the dummy, esp. excessive backwards neck flexion. He did and overlay video. It is a dramatic difference, quite shocking.
@@BigEightiesNewWave do you have the link? cant find anything reasonable except dumb comparisons like this video
@@PeterJurasekidk but I remember seeing that video
If you're in a crash, and there is hardly any damage on the car. Then the people inside are the ones taking all the forces...
Unless it's a really small crash 😉
And the vehicle is a full write off regardless… so what’s the point of having a minimal crumple zone? It’s not like the crashed Cybertruck can be repaired…
No. Your point is valid only when dealing with minor accidents.
@@tangoESPECIALalso that frunk design will mean high repair costs. And once steel DOES bend…. Well…. Good luck bending it back
bạn lên xem các vụ tai nạn xe VinFast.
đầu xe cứng và rất an toàn.
nhiều video tai nạn VinFast đâm đối thủ bẹp mà VinFast không sao
It’s not based on the damage it’s based on the safety
Not even comparable. I'd like to see the ct do a front corner impact test like the other trucks did instead of a full front Impact . Let's see the damage
Comparing a Telsa full barrier crash to another vehicle (Rivian) performing a moderate overlap test is idiotic. The moderate overlap test the Rivian is shown in is exponentially more demanding.
The 35 MPH full barrier (Tesla shown) crash is an archaic test . The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have moved on to more real-world tests: the small overlap and moderate overlap. These are done at 40 MPH; that's approximately 35% more force than a test at 35 MPH. These two tests represent scenarios how cars crash in the real world and are much more challenging than an old fashioned (full) barrier crash. A full barrier crash is done by manufacturers because that is what the NHTSA/DOT requires. IIHS doesn't even do barrier tests any more as they are irrelevant compared to the results of overlaps tests. So the video Tesla released just proves they passed the bare government minimum testing to make a production vehicle.
Why are the overlap tests more demanding? A moderate overlap concentrates 100% of the crash on only 45% of the vehicles front structure; a small overlap test, on only 15% of the vehicle structure. It takes serious energy management engineering to pass these tests since only part of the car structure is available for energy management, compared to using the entire front of the car to absorb crash forces. For example, any late 1960's car will pass a full barrier test at 30 MPH with only seat belts. A moderate or small overlap test would tear such a car in two.
All manufacturers test for small and medium overlap in their own labs (plus a full barrier test at speed higher than 35 MPH) for their own purposes, but few release that footage. So manufacturers wait until IIHS (or Euro NCAP) does these tests as privately funded to accept their accolades or in many cases provide excuses (See the furor over the IIHS test of the Mercedes C class of 2012).
As for what is shown in the Tesla video, modern engineering requires a very stiff passenger compartment zone with advanced airbags working with progressive deforming zones optimized for the three types of crashed tests. So you should see little or no door or pillar deformation.
As for the rear seat passengers, a vehicle of this price range should have rear seat airbags. They rear wheel behavior? The thing has rear wheel steering, so either the steering mechanism broke or deformed, which meaningless to the result of the test.
If Tesla was truly proud of the Cyber Trucks crashworthiness, they would release video of their internal small and moderate overlap test results.
@playlist9y Dude ! That is called Crumble zone. The damage you see that vehicle's sacraficial front end take, is damage that vehicles occupant do not take. In Cybertuck the occupants take the full force of the impact and on high speed impact die from interal injuries caused by the seatbelt and impact force. Seatbelt alone can only save your life of full impact force of about under 50 mph.
Now imagine having an accident and the nightmare of getting a Cybertruck repaired. Pass.
"If you're in an argument with another car, you will win". That's the total opposite of what crash behavior should be about.
What an expert pointed out is your cervical spine in the Tesla is excessively flexed backwards due to the fact it crushes less, to not slow down the impact, as much. You want the impact slowed as much as possible. To prevent snapping spine/paralysis.
In the demo live unveiling last week right when the side video cuts off, the neck of the dummy is flexed backwards excessively compared to dummy in trucks that give more in the front. It is so stiff, it actually imposes higher loads on your body.
Overlays of side by side shots show the neck flexing much more in the Tesla vehicle.
In the cybertruck you are the crumple zone. The force of that collision looked extremely harsh on the passengers, especially the ones in the back. But hey, for 0.001 second, you could enjoy a Tesla without huge panelgaps in the doors before your neck snaps. Always something to be positive about!
Someone is jumping to conclusion. But that is what the hatera do. Tesla owners don't mind panel gaps as it has more pro than con. Ford being the highest in warranty claims, is surely doing great but oh no panel gaps. Lol
@@nguyep4Lol, the cybertruck will be worse for sure. It was just released and have had no time to break down yet. Tesla cars are in the absolute bottom quality wise, i don’t expect CT to do any better. In fact, there are so many unknowns that I expect it to do worse
Or worse: the Cybertruck uses the opponent vehicle as crumple zone… drastically increasing the chance of killing them instead of having a crumple zone in the Cybertruck. Insurance rates will be astronomical once the Cybertruck is in accidents and kills the opponent vehicle driver at a far higher rate than other trucks.
Your content always stands out to me! By the way, I had an interesting chat with a former Tesla worker who now interviews billionaires. It's another level of fascinating!
👎
I’m glad people are seeing the BS here.
Bad reporting, are we surprised 🙄
"If you have any argument with another car you will win". Meaning if you crush had on with another car it will save you but your Cybertruck won't return the favour. Elon Musk is a very smart
The Cybertruck lacks a proper crumple zone in case of a front impact. Its structure is too rigid, exposing occupants to dangerously high g-forces.
Btw, imo it is the ugliest "car" ever built. Like from a dystopian future hostile to man. Awful!
It's for Mars when space karen takes trumptards in a one way trip to heaven's gate
0:13 Freeze Notice the low camera angle used to hide the excessive neck extension that happens. There is another video showing a higher angle, and the neck extension is awful.
Not the same test . The rivian is doing the small over lap test
Exactly
I wouldn’t want to be in the CT….if the truck isn’t absorbing the impact, you are! 😢
You do realize that these are NOT the same tests as the offset crash or the more stringent side crash in the RIVIAN.
That’s an oversimplification of what’s really happening. When the Cybertruck hits another vehicle it transfers a lot more of its energy to the other vehicle leaving you with less impact to deal with. Airbags for you while the other car needs the Jaws of Life. Take your pick. And of course, then there’s Full Self Driving which is already safer than the average driver. Give it a couple years and the entire argument is moot. When you evaluate a Tesla (unlike legacy manufacturers) you need to look at where they’re going, not just take a snapshot of the present.
That's the exact point of the humanoid crash test dummies full of sensors. You can't fool nature and the laws of physics.
The jury is out on how the Cybertruck does but we do have to consider that Tesla's entire portfolio of cars is rated extremely high for safety. It seems very unlikely that they would have a vehicle that wouldn't also be extremely safe as that is their entire track record. It could happen but it just seems unlikely. We'll see what NHSTA and the IIHS have to say about it. Right now it's all irrelevant because most people can't even go an buy a Cybertruck today if they wanted and that seems to be the case for at least the next few years.
@@johncahill3644 classic American mindset: “if I’m alright but I’ve killed the occupants of the other car/pedestrian/cyclist, then that’s great!” 🙄 what happens when you crash into something solid or another cybertruck?
The cyber truck will be the reason for a lot of accident and deaths.
Am I the only one who thinks this cybersomething is a chunk of hideousness???
Ні, ти не один 😶😁
Stop hating and appreciate greatness
@@terrillmontgomery1627we do! The R1T is a great vehicle 👍
@@taras_dankov36 Good then. That design is eye-bleeding.
I always thought the Corvette was embarrassing and wouldn’t be caught dead in one. But they sold a whole lot of them anyway. Funny how that works.
The thumbnail is trying to make us believe that the front of the rivian is totally destroyed by a full front crash in comparison with the cybertruck, when it is instead a small overlap. Totally misleading.
By the way, the rivian seems to have passed the test with flying colors, with deformation in a non vital zone and a perfect rigidity of the habitacle to protect the legs of the driver. We could not say the same about the cybertruck with no crumple zone..
Even ignoring the fact that those are two differents tests that are without comparison and that comparing them is idiotic... it's scary that the Cybertruck has barely any give, all those forces go into the passengers instead of being dissipated along the car. The Cybertruck looks like a bloody deathtrap.
Being in a cyber truck that inertia has to be taken on somewhere, just happens to be the driver.
Unfair to compare offset crash (Rivian) with full wall Tesla. Discrediting yourself.
Until we have the data from the dummies, we really can’t compare anything because the vehicles take different approaches to absorbing impact. The cyber truck just looks less dramatic after damage, but it doesn’t mean that the potential for harm for the occupants is higher or lower.
i would be interested in seeing how the cybertruck looks after it did the crashtest the rivian did.
From the looks of this video comparison I'd say the Cybertruck didnt do well in the offset frontal crash.
Rivian is so much better
CyberTruck has not been tested by the IIHS. Nice try tho!
The side impact sleds look really different. Like the cyberslut, that sled looks pretty light, compared to IIHS.
Where the tests on these vehicles conducted by the same testing company in the same facility ?
Any vehicle which has low centre of gravity will never roll over is right statement. 😅 Mr musk.
These tests are done to check the safety of the occupants. Usually the more damage to the vehicle the better impact absorption and better safety for passengers.
Yeah sure... The Cyber Truck didn't crumble which means the occupants absorbed the shock of the impact and all their bones crumbled. How bout you try crashing it like the yellow truck that overlap front crash
I’m no physics major, but I know broken back when I see one. There’s a reason why cars and truck crush in a front impact.
Also, a moment of silence for baby in the back. Snapped like a twig.
So Tesla are your batteries modular yet in your vehicles ? no ...... ill pass then xD
Why ever are you comparing a 50% overlap test with frontal test?
BTW, a well designed vehicle will indeed crumple in front, so their passengers--don't.
So, Cybertuck kills it's passangers on high speed collision.
You do know that front of modern cars are intentionally made crumble to cushion and dampen the impact. With rigid steen construction driver and passangers take the full impact.
This happens when when a person with no engineering knowledge and no understanding how to make car, designs a car.
Rivian R1T is a top notch EV truck based on consumer reviews and demand. The cyber truck will probably do well based on individual tastes.
There'll be problems with cyber trucks later on. It's more a tank than a car and the design is flawed. If the exterior doesn't absorb as much force like a regular car, it'll be pushed into the interior instead
The thing is, people who don’t know better will think the fact the Tesla doesn’t crush is a good thing.
A FULL FRONTAL IMPACT TEST VS OVERLAP. I can’t with these biased channels. Call me a tesla fan if you want.
Of course it's the same crash wall. "Experts"
That's two types of different impacts, completely uncomfortable
OK so where is the APPLES to APPLES comparison in this video??? cos i have missed it
I like the Rivian R1T. It looks and performs great but there is room for both EV as they will appeal to different segments of the population.
CT for probably the people who buy the latest Pro Max iPhone every year
This is about as dishonest as the tesla vs Porsche drag race
Misleading video......not the same tests
Sure why show two actually comparable tests? I guess because that doesn’t fit your agenda
I'm a Tesla owner (Model 3) and love the CT but this video is crap. Compare the same tests or don't post at all.
Clearly you guys don't understand the theory behind vehicle crash safety. You want it to crumple. All this demostrates to us engineers is i wont trust a CT with the safety of my family.
Cybertruck 800 volt architecture with a lot of amps. Is there any electricution danger in a crash?.
high voltage = low amp
All that means is that the time to charge up the EV's battery pack will be effectively halved.
There is a danger of the battery catching on fire.
@@cyruslupercal9493 very very rare. Gas cars more common
@@Just_a_random_birbonly because there are huge number more gas vehicles then electric vehicles on the road.
Crumple zones have left the chat
You don’t even need the full comparison to everyone pointing that out. Regardless, there is a clear winner here so.
Yeah...I could see some moonbat Obiden voter carrying a load of firewood in the bed😅
Quảng cáo về chất lượng như Tesla của Elonmuk mới là đỉnh, trái ngược hoàn toàn với cách quảng cáo của hãng xe ông Vượng
the defrent between day and night
This video is pretty badly cut..
clickbait rubbish with two totally different scenarios.
So sánh " quá khôn" 😂😂😂😂
Shame. 2 totally different crush test…… waste of time
👍
the level of protection is nearing to that of a soldier inside an IFV.
You actually want the car to crumple up so that the force is not transferred to you in a crash. Protection against projectiles is something else.
tesla supporter detected opinion rejected
Hum, no. Also an IFV is pretty bad in the case of car crash.
Erm… you wouldn’t want to crash in an ifv
@@MaticTheProto 🤓
Fake video
No son los mismos impactos 🤦🏻
Rivian is very safe…Cybertruck will be safer 🎉
Yeah I wouldn't count on that. That test is screaming red flags
@@jk-xm7fi Please enlighten us. This is a joke, right?
@@Eric-xp1kl
1. Tests where the vehicle hits a wall straight on and across the entire front of the vehicle has been discontinued in many ratings systems as it doesn't represent real world scenarios and is easier to look good in.
2. The cybertruck comes to a sudden stop with minimal deformation compared to most modern vehicles this indicates that it doesn't dampen the impact as much as it should. people inside the vehicle will experience higher g forces which can be fatal by itself
3. The above points indicate basic principles of crash safety have been de prioritised so what else is it missing?
Report misleading
Different crash test... who cares
Cybertruck …supercar ….revolutionary …tecnology
Cyber truck is so ugly 😮
This video is just click soam
Cyber truck's side window air bag not even open. so dangerous!!!