Another Cybertruck Measurement Dimensions Thread - Based on New Videos

[cvalue13]

Admitting right off the bat the limitations of measuring things on screens, and that this is purely for whiling away time until real numbers are known:

BUT, the newest videos out of CA do give us what I believe is a *collective* first:

• a regulation CA license plate
• on the ‘pre-production beta’
• with a square-on photo of the rear end

California license plates are 12” wide by 6” tall. This provides a known measure.

Given the distortion of perspective in images, one can achieve any reliable level of accuracy in relevant size only comparing objects that are ~identical distances from the camera. Because the license plate is on the same plane as the CT tailgate, the known dimensions of the license plate can be a reliable comparison to the features of the CT tailgate on that same plane of distance from camera. (Conversely, one could not with any accuracy measure, e.g., rear view mirrors because they are materially further from the camera).

I used the PowerPoint ruler function, with the image blown up, to provide a scale of 24 PP ruler marks across the license plate. So, each hash represented ~ 1/2”. I double-checked with Microsoft PowerTools pixel measurement. I’d guess the measurements are within 1.5” of true.

Resulting tailgate area measurements were as follows:

• (Red) bottom SS edge of tailgate: 71.5”
• (Yellow) topmost edge of tailgate: 72.5”
• R/L taillights: <5”
• (Blue) Distance between R/L taillights: 62.5”
• (Orange) top ‘shelf’ of sail pillar @ tailgate: 7”
• (Purple) tonneau at tailgate (and so distance between sail pillars at tailgate): 57”

Given the limits of perspective, the above are the *most* available measurements with any reasonable degree of accuracy using the license as the standard.

The resolution of the photo wasn’t great, so edges were a bit fuzzy. A higher resolution photo would have been nice.

Still, a not bad extraction of scale

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

@JBee continuing our chat RE sail pillar internal volume

if widest point of pillar table (at tailgate) is ~7”, then narrowest part (at cab juncture) is squaring with ~3.5” estimate. Casting up there can’t be much narrower than that, and so centered in sail pillar up there.

would mean that even if rear QP pooches outward even 8”there’s only ~ 5” of free space at the widest point?

 

[JBee]

Ok Lets have a look at dimensions then. To preempt any expectations, I'm only interested in getting as close an approximation on real measurements as possible. I'm not really trying to predict certain feature, rather only understand what could be possible.

So first up I used an online tool to generate some measurements on a screen grab with a bit better resolution and it comes up with this:

The picture is not of the CT full width, but the camera is in the centre of the rear, so easy to measure from. So vault cover width is around 60" and the vehicle width in the rear is around 75", total width including fenders approaching 80". Note that both the tyre width and number plate match the dimensional scale.

Now that we know the sail is 8" wide above the tail light we can look at another image and do it again, and see just how distorted by perspective it is.

So although it looks like it might produce usable results, even if we use measurements on a single plane, it's actually fairly useless without lens distortion adjustment.

Now with that our of the way, I think if we really seriously want to get some usable dimensions the best thing to do would be to create and orthomosiac to scale, and then use that to create a CAD line drawing to extract dimensions from. The best way to do that is trying to get as many photos/video frames from as many different angles, also heights, of the same vehicle as possible. Having two different camera optics can also help. So maybe if we can assemble some pictures here, I'll look at trying to create an ortho from them.

In regards to the thickness of the sail storage there's a couple of variables, but one that is consistent is that the 34" wheel is around 11.2" wide, and requires a few degrees of articulation to turn with 4WS. So if you take 2.3" off that you still have 8.9", and then you still have to add a few inches on either side, for steering angle on that wheel diameter. So I'd expect the lower section of the sail, up to the highest wheel suspension articulation point, which would be above the bed, to be at least 14-15" on each side. There is also some 15" under the bed to the floor of the CT, which is about 1100l (38cuft) of volume just under the bed alone.

 

[S.H.Peterson]

You are quite spot on ... I used to work for a defense contractor and my job was exactly what you are doing.
Congrats!
Is there a reasonable track width form your measurements?
I think the tail lights need to be bigger, though

 

[cvalue13]

So although it looks like it might produce usable results, even if we use measurements on a single plane, it's actually fairly useless without lens distortion adjustment.

That investor day photo is I think too skewed in angle to be of much reliability.

And the other photo, from the truck seen live on the road, it is possible to capture a more square-on photo (see mine in OP)

Figures are pretty consistent

try your method again on the fender flare at the TOPMOST portion of the flare - that is the flares widest point, and will be then the vehicle’s reportable width … at the back at least (it is possible the front flare max vehicles width point is marginally wider than the rear flare max vehicle width).

 

[greggertruck]

I. LOVE. THIS.

Keep it up!

 

[Mushadd]

Ok Lets have a look at dimensions then. To preempt any expectations, I'm only interested in getting as close an approximation on real measurements as possible. I'm not really trying to predict certain feature, rather only understand what could be possible.

So first up I used an online tool to generate some measurements on a screen grab with a bit better resolution and it comes up with this:

The picture is not of the CT full width, but the camera is in the centre of the rear, so easy to measure from. So vault cover width is around 60" and the vehicle width in the rear is around 75", total width including fenders approaching 80". Note that both the tyre width and number plate match the dimensional scale.

Now that we know the sail is 8" wide above the tail light we can look at another image and do it again, and see just how distorted by perspective it is.

So although it looks like it might produce usable results, even if we use measurements on a single plane, it's actually fairly useless without lens distortion adjustment.

Now with that our of the way, I think if we really seriously want to get some usable dimensions the best thing to do would be to create and orthomosiac to scale, and then use that to create a CAD line drawing to extract dimensions from. The best way to do that is trying to get as many photos/video frames from as many different angles, also heights, of the same vehicle as possible. Having two different camera optics can also help. So maybe if we can assemble some pictures here, I'll look at trying to create an ortho from them.

In regards to the thickness of the sail storage there's a couple of variables, but one that is consistent is that the 34" wheel is around 11.2" wide, and requires a few degrees of articulation to turn with 4WS. So if you take 2.3" off that you still have 8.9", and then you still have to add a few inches on either side, for steering angle on that wheel diameter. So I'd expect the lower section of the sail, up to the highest wheel suspension articulation point, which would be above the bed, to be at least 14-15" on each side. There is also some 15" under the bed to the floor of the CT, which is about 1100l (38cuft) of volume just under the bed alone.

26.5” wide in the bed? What exactly are you measuring there. Looks like a typo.

 

[Ogre]

Nice. Honestly like this a lot better than the iPhone measuring.

Keep In mind, accuracy falls off as you get further from the plane of the license plate.

But aren’t we essentially just circling back to what we had to begin with here? Numbers look very familiar.

 

[cvalue13]

26.5” wide in the bed? What exactly are you measuring there. Looks like a typo.

for that measurement, he was basically demonstrating how perspective in a photo does not allow accurate measurements between different depths from camera. A thing that is further away, appear, smaller, and so does not measure correctly if the standard used is nearer.

 

[cvalue13]

But aren’t we essentially just circling back to what we had to begin with here? Numbers look very familiar.

I think I am following what you are saying, if you are saying that this appears to be a vehicle that is smaller than the unveil prototype, but true to the unveil production stats shown on screen.

It supports an about 5% shrinkage from the unveil prototype, which is basically exactly the unveil production stats.

That said, any such purported 5% shrinkage is surely a loose phrasing, meaning that on various metrics shrinkage amounts to about 5% here or there.

@JBee’s width estimate I believe is a little off, because he appears to have measured the fender flares down near the bumper line. The widest point of the flares, and so the truck overall, are up near the top of the flair.

Still, based on these rough estimates, I tend to think the truck is about 80” wide including the ~5-6” of flare at the rear and 7-8” of flare at the front.

Maybe another reason they’re disabling the top lights and rear bar lights on these protos: the presence or absence of triple amber width markers would give away a metric they probably want to manage the socialization of.

 

[greggertruck]

80" total width then? Roughly.

Including all mirrors and such?

 

[ÆCIII]

This type of image point extrapolation is all we have at the moment, and these methods along with speculation are indeed fun.

Lens distortion metrics or even some 3D stereo imagery captures might help us hone in to more accurate (remote) measurements, if the right software is used, but we're getting into the fringes of what's available.

We need to have developed and perfected a "Holo-Imager"

In the meantime, if anyone can get close to a parked or exhibit ßeta Cybertruck again, I would wish for them to have a Bosch Laser Measuring Tool such as this one, to use in recording some precise differential measurements:​

​

https://www.boschtools.com/us/en/boschtools-ocs/laser-measures-23502-c/​

​

https://www.boschtools.com/us/en/boschtools-ocs/laser-measures-glm165-25g-207400-p/​

​

​

There are some effects of accuracy on measurements not quite perpendicular, so this tool would have limitations depending on how close one can get. Even at slight distances, these tools can give relatively precise readings. ​

​

I personally own a red laser model several years older (DLR165) and even it has been accurate to within 1/8" at distances over 50 feet, so the newer ones with an accuracy of ± 1/16" would be even more accurate for our distance measurement purposes. These tools also switch easily between metric or inches measurement units. So if anyone has one of these and can get near a stationary Cybertruck again, that would be great.​

​

Of course there would be some math exercises involved, using adjacent objects and walls as references too, but I think it would be fun for anyone who had the device and got the chance.​

Until Tesla gives us the precise specs and measurements, this is just another idea I can think of.

I have a feeling this post is going to go right over some peoples heads, because those who haven't used a laser measuring tool won't know how versatile or precise they are - sort of like people who've never been in a Tesla before ...​

- ÆCIII

 

[Albern]

Maybe another reason they’re disabling the top lights and rear bar lights on these protos: the presence or absence of triple amber width markers would give away a metric they probably want to manage the socialization of.

What do you think are the reasons that Tesla might not be disclosing the width of CT if it does happen to be at least 80" wide?

 

[cvalue13]

80" total width then? Roughly.

Including all mirrors and such?

not including mirrors. Which if true would indicate the truck is ~80” at the outermost flare tips, meaning the truck envelope itself is ~74”-72” wide (based on 2”-4” flares on both sides). That would put the CT envelope, not counting flares, as several inches narrower than a standard F150 (79.8” wide).

Vehicle statutory width is measured absent mirrors, but including any other widest point of body panels including bumpers, ~ridged fender flares, etc.

“The term overall width refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determine with doors and windows closed, and the wheels in the straight-ahead position.”​

For example, in a Raptor, the widened quarter panels plus the fender flares account for it measuring 86.3” wide (not counting mirrors) vs a regular F150’s 79.8” width.

One might as I did wonder why fender flares, made of plastic, aren’t considered “flexible fender extensions” under the regs. I dug into the regs and best I can tell being plastic like a bumper would not be considered such a “flexible” extension (contrast with a mudflap) - but perhaps particularly when they house functional equipment such as side marker lights (in the Raptor) or camera/sensor equipment (in the CT).

Full sized modern trucks have traditionally stayed a fraction of an inch below 80” in order to avoid the few additional regulatory/equipment burdens placed on “wide” vehicles (an 80” threshold). Making a truck, say, 81” would implicate the added cost of incorporating three front-facing amber lights and three rear-facing red lights - which in the U.S. must be mounted “as high as practicable” - to alert motorists that there’s a wide (and so maybe slow-moving) vehicle ahead. (They were regs directed toward semis and other large vehicles, before retail passenger vehicles became so large.)

That the front amber light must be mounted “as high as practicable” raises a few interesting question about the CT and its possible built-in windshield light bar, or the older protos seen with amber marker lights. If the CT has that light bar (and so OEM lighting available) at the windshield peak, and if the CT is over 80”, I would think it regulators coukd press to place the front amber lights within that higher lightbar. (The Raptor’s front amber lights are instead at the hood, presumably owing to it not being practicable to require Ford to develop OEM exterior lighting where non otherwise exists.)

We’ve also seen older (but still beta?) CT prototypes with the amber indicators lower than the hood line:

notably, this location between the lowerlights may not be viewed as “as high as practicable” by regulators when the CT has available the OEM light bar up at the hood line.

and, the investor day prototype did not have these lower set marker lights (nor voids in the trim) in this area between the lower lights:

 

[cvalue13]

What do you think are the reasons that Tesla might not be disclosing the width of CT if it does happen to be at least 80" wide?

Eluded to in the post above, but also:

As a general matter, Tesla may be simply wishing to withhold some aesthetic “punch” for the reveal. And the lighting, generally, certainly will add some punch. So, perhaps they disable all but the necessary lights until showing the full light show at reveal?

I also don’t think we’ve seen the betas lit with the statutorily required side marker lights:

And we know for certain the statutorily required rear third break light has been disabled on recent prototypes.

So there’s this idea of keeping the lighting aesthetics unknown until reveal, but there’s also possibly a similar “camouflage” motivation to not indirectly disclose the final dimensions (in this case width) until reveal?

Last but most whimsical: if the CT is >80” and if either by design or regulatory req the front amber lights are housed in a “hidden” front light bar at the top of the windshield, having the ambers on would give away the rather exciting “punch” of the light bar’s existence? However, I think this is unlikely given the location of the camera array being located in the centerline of windshield, which is where the center amber light must be located by statute.

all in all, though, what’s for certain is the recent prototypes have had various required lights disabled (eg the center tail light, the rear side markers) for unknown reasons. accordingly, I don’t take the absence of wide vehicle indicator lights to on its own suggest the CT is narrower than 80”.

Sponsored