Let's get down to the real or imagined demand for a Midgate

[Ogre]

This is the way.

But we don’t have a van or SUV even announced yet. Hopefully they will get one on the market quickly after Cybertruck.

Sponsored

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Granted this is not scientific as this forum is most likely a higher concentration of those in favor, than the rest of the truck market.

But I'm curious just how many fall on one side or the other.

I'm openly against it for multiple reasons mentioned previously. Aside from my distaste for the idea, I think the main reason it won't exist in production is because it's more trouble than it's worth, both in designing and in real world usage.

I don’t even understand why ask the question. The design was done many months ago. They went into tooling 3 months ago. There either is or isn’t a midgate and that is that. Live with it or not. There are good arguments for and against.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I'm kinda middle of the road. I like added versatility, so why not? A SS roof rack would take care of most problems, but what if I'm camping in the cold cold mountains, and in the middle of the night I wanna grab me a pipefull/brewski/copy of "Big'uns" a bite to eat? The passthrough is going to be dealbreaker for some. I vote "Sure, why not".

I didn’t see a “sure, why not” option.

 

[Throwcomputer]

I don’t even understand why ask the question. The design was done many months ago. They went into tooling 3 months ago. There either is or isn’t a midgate and that is that. Live with it or not. There are good arguments for and against.

I'm not asking the question looking for an answer on whether people think it will be a feature that will be there or not. I mentioned previously that I don't really care if it is or isn't included (I think it's stupid, so I fall on the not included side of the poll). I'm gauging what the desire for said feature is among the user base of this forum. There seems to be some die hard midgaters. Was wondering what the percentage of users really need it vs the rest.

Wording may be confusing, but the gist of the poll is... Are you going to be pissed if midgate isn't included, or does it not matter to you either way? Additional poll options only serve to delineate gray areas that aren't the point of the question being posed. I'm asking people to pick one side or the other!

 

[Ogre]

Wording may be confusing, but the gist of the poll is... Are you going to be pissed if midgate isn't included, or does it not matter to you either way?

This is not how I think anyone will interpret the poll. Not even close.

I’m very middle of the road on this, but voted for the first option. I suspect based on the wording, most middle of the road people would also vote similarly.

 

[Crissa]

Whether you think it's useful or practical is irrelevant to whether it would be implemented in a useful or practical way for you.

Anyone saying it wouldn't be, is asserting they know better than what's plausible. What's plausible includes lots of things never done.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

They leaked, but not more than sun roofs from a decade before or doors a decade before that.

Implementation isn't the limit of plausibility. And not all implementation is going to be good.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Main reason for no midgate is amphibious mode. Midgate sinks, costs more and is harder to make safe against loads and injury.

 

[Dids]

They leaked, but not more than sun roofs from a decade before or doors a decade before that.

Implementation isn't the limit of plausibility. And not all implementation is going to be good.

-Crissa

Chevy has often made rattles and leaky vehicles. Agree that implementation is key!

 

[Crissa]

Chevy has often made rattles and leaky vehicles. Agree that implementation is key!

Right now, the Soyuz is the most reliable human-rated spacecraft.

But the Space Shuttle put more people more days in orbit.

And right now, a Soyuz is failing in orbit. Dragon may take its title, soon. Orion is unlikely to, for the infrequency of flights, but it literally needs to be, for going outside the Van Allen belts. Starship will, too. And people have said it literally couldn't land.

Even if something seems impractical, or lower reliability, doesn't mean that it won't actually outperform the tried and true.

-Crissa

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I'm not asking the question looking for an answer on whether people think it will be a feature that will be there or not. I mentioned previously that I don't really care if it is or isn't included (I think it's stupid, so I fall on the not included side of the poll). I'm gauging what the desire for said feature is among the user base of this forum. There seems to be some die hard midgaters. Was wondering what the percentage of users really need it vs the rest.

Wording may be confusing, but the gist of the poll is... Are you going to be pissed if midgate isn't included, or does it not matter to you either way? Additional poll options only serve to delineate gray areas that aren't the point of the question being posed. I'm asking people to pick one side or the other!

But you lumped everyone into extreme camps. Perhaps if there had been an option for “I can go either way” I’d have voted.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Main reason for no midgate is amphibious mode. Midgate sinks, costs more and is harder to make safe against loads and injury.

I am a little confused here. The bulk of CT weight is in the battery and in the rear due to that casting. But Elon said the CT could be used as a boat with an electric motor in back. So the bed will have to be water tight for a while and that would suggest that a leaky midgate isn’t so much of an issue. It isn’t that I care one wait or another as long as there is some kind of access between the cab and bed but I just don’t understand the argument.

 

[JBee]

I am a little confused here. The bulk of CT weight is in the battery and in the rear due to that casting. But Elon said the CT could be used as a boat with an electric motor in back. So the bed will have to be water tight for a while and that would suggest that a leaky midgate isn’t so much of an issue. It isn’t that I care one wait or another as long as there is some kind of access between the cab and bed but I just don’t understand the argument.

According to my calculations the waterline is around the rear bumper height when floating. If you have the tailgate down it will still float, but not if you make the doors open or midgate down, as the cabin will fill up with water. You could fill some voids with foam, but most of the voids below the waterline already have heavy gear in it, like batteries and driveline. So filling voids above the water line won't help it from becoming mostly submerged if the cab fills, but it might at least stop it from going under.

The other points are still valid.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

According to my calculations the waterline is around the rear bumper height when floating. If you have the tailgate down it will still float, but not if you make the doors open or midgate down, as the cabin will fill up with water. You could fill some voids with foam, but most of the voids below the waterline already have heavy gear in it, like batteries and driveline. So filling voids above the water line won't help it from becoming mostly submerged if the cab fills, but it might at least stop it from going under.

The other points are still valid.

Interesting since with most cars the cab would be the last to fill.

Sponsored