CT Rear End Deep Dive (har har)

[cvalue13]

Started studying the video from a few weeks ago out of Palo Alto, and was particularly interested in the rear end:

Several observations:

• the photo above’s angle emphasizes that the rear “window” is really more of a rear peephole; expected this when the years old ride-along video showed, below, a video-only rear view mirror

The more recent beta photo from the front, given some “computer enhance” adjustments for visibility, highlights the tech cluster up there behind the video rear view “mirror”:

• is that vault cover partially deployed, or is that as tucked in as it gets? Wonder how much that hangs past the rear window. Nice for shade, not nice for fitting furniture in the bed. Based on photos of earlier prototype beds, I’ve long thought that the reveal day tout of a 6’ bed is a bit slippery. The floor of the bed may be 6’, but the angle of the bulkhead appears to reduce the aperture by several inches. And if this vault cover adds a few more, it could end up a sub-5’6” bed aperture.

• Given the clean lines of the tailgate area, I can only assume this is the rear-facing rear view camera (given its height):

At another angle in the video, we can see this camera (?) housing has a theme-consistent wedge design:

• the next thing I noticed, is the body’s overall lack of “V” shape compared to past prototypes. Here they are alongside each other:

• above photo of an earlier prototype also provides a stark contrast to the newer prototype’s far less busy rear break/running light approach (contrast the below photo with break lights engaged vs the further first photo of the post with only taillights:

• the last two photos also emphasize the newer prototype’s larger black bar/trim running the top of the tailgate. (I suppose it’s possible - but unlikely - that this black bar conceales a full length running/taillight like seen in earlier protos, but which in the new proto is blacked out in daylight and only illuminates at night?)

• next, this rear photo - subjected to some more “computer enhance” for visibility, highlights some details about the new rear bumper (and aerodynamics?) kit below the tailgate:

If a person looks close enough and squints, they still might not make out any hitch point cover of some sort, obscuring an otherwise unobvious location that should be directly below the license plate/step cutout.

• another angle gives some additional detail on the rear bumper license plate/step area, including probably reverse lights (in red) and a cheeky little marker light/sensor/camera housing (in blue) at the corners giving both side and rear coverage (seen also in earlier prototypes):

• another noticeable design alteration highlighted by the rear view regards the reduced width and aggressiveness of the fender flares, note new vs old:

• also noticeable is a design change in the upper corners of the tailgate design. In the new prototype, the running/break light housing appears to a part of the rear quarter panel/sail, more like a traditional truck design, contrasted with earlier prototypes that appear to have housed the tailight in the tailgate itself:

VS

from a safety perspective, this movement of the tailight housing is probably driven by thefact that taillights should/must still be visible when the tailgate is down.

This design change would introduce a gap in any rear tailight bar, which gap prior designs avoided by having the entire length of the tailgate contiguous. The new configuration wouldn’t allow for a tailight design such as seen in earlier prototypes:

Curiously, the new prototype’s change would seem to make for an oddly shaped tailgate, with double the number of corners when down:

• visible at various glints are two anomalies on the top sides of each of sails:

unclear if these are merely access points for trim/panel fastening, or instead covers over some sort of attachment point for accessories, like racks, or tie-downs. Looking back over earlier prototype vids, there are parallel anomalies in these spots:

All-in-all, the sum of these changes makes the truck considerably less mad-max looking compared to the earlier prototypes - in a way I find more appealing. Similarly, the lighting design changes I find more revisionist 1980s future (ala Bladerunner) than the earlier prototypes - again a positive for me. The old light bar looks now seem dated.

Still, the newer prototype looks considerably smaller. I remember Musk referencing a necessary downsizing, though everyone seems to continue to site the dimensions from the reveal. If the envelope is in fact smaller, something I can’t put my finger on tells me the design of this truck could mean that reductions to the envelope can make for disproportionate reductions to the interior volume. Something about the angularity and roofline just suggests a possibly awkward space-human form interaction.

Not to say that will be the ultimate fact of it, but instead that it seems a challenge to be overcome.

No surprises the production version is somewhat neutered in its extremes, like: the V-shaped angle of the rear elevation now made more perpendicular to the ground, the unusual tailight housing embedded in the tailgate now moved to the quarter panel, the less aggressive wheel well flares. or the formerly minimalist bumper now having far more mass and familiar molded-plastic like form factor. As for the bumper, I assume this is largely driven by aerodynamics (but perhaps also covering a deeper storage well in the bed, for spares, etc?)

Surely many of these things pointed out may be old news to some of you, and the corrections/additions come flying in - here for it!

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

Sticking still towards the back of the CT, the new “offroad” video - while taken from a distance - doesn’t appear to show the same glaring chargeport door - new vs old below.

if gone from that spot, begs the question: where might it have gone?

In another recent video, but seemingly showing an older beta (not yet with triangle mirrors, etc.) there appears a possible answer

Separately, notice this older beta also has a third taillight central to the tailgate, not seen in the most recent beta video from Palo Alto:

 

[Frank Mendez]

Started studying the video from a few weeks ago out of Palo Alto, and was particularly interested in the rear end:

Several observations:

• the photo above’s angle emphasizes that the rear “window” is really more of a rear peephole; expected this when the years old ride-along video showed, below, a video-only rear view mirror

The more recent beta photo from the front, given some “computer enhance” adjustments for visibility, highlights the tech cluster up there behind the video rear view “mirror”:

• is that vault cover partially deployed, or is that as tucked in as it gets? Wonder how much that hangs past the rear window. Nice for shade, not nice for fitting furniture in the bed. Based on photos of earlier prototype beds, I’ve long thought that the reveal day tout of a 6’ bed is a bit slippery. The floor of the bed may be 6’, but the angle of the bulkhead appears to reduce the aperture by several inches. And if this vault cover adds a few more, it could end up a sub-5’6” bed aperture.

• Given the clean lines of the tailgate area, I can only assume this is the rear-facing rear view camera (given its height):

At another angle in the video, we can see this camera (?) housing has a theme-consistent wedge design:

• the next thing I noticed, is the body’s overall lack of “V” shape compared to past prototypes. Here they are alongside each other:

• above photo of an earlier prototype also provides a stark contrast to the newer prototype’s far less busy rear break/running light approach (contrast the below photo with break lights engaged vs the further first photo of the post with only taillights:

• the last two photos also emphasize the newer prototype’s larger black bar/trim running the top of the tailgate. (I suppose it’s possible - but unlikely - that this black bar conceales a full length running/taillight like seen in earlier protos, but which in the new proto is blacked out in daylight and only illuminates at night?)

• next, this rear photo - subjected to some more “computer enhance” for visibility, highlights some details about the new rear bumper (and aerodynamics?) kit below the tailgate:

If a person looks close enough and squints, they still might not make out any hitch point cover of some sort, obscuring an otherwise unobvious location that should be directly below the license plate/step cutout.

• another angle gives some additional detail on the rear bumper license plate/step area, including probably reverse lights (in red) and a cheeky little marker light/sensor/camera housing (in blue) at the corners giving both side and rear coverage (seen also in earlier prototypes):

• another noticeable design alteration highlighted by the rear view regards the reduced width and aggressiveness of the fender flares, note new vs old:

• also noticeable is a design change in the upper corners of the tailgate design. In the new prototype, the running/break light housing appears to a part of the rear quarter panel/sail, more like a traditional truck design, contrasted with earlier prototypes that appear to have housed the tailight in the tailgate itself:

VS

from a safety perspective, this movement of the tailight housing is probably driven by thefact that taillights should/must still be visible when the tailgate is down.

This design change would introduce a gap in any rear tailight bar, which gap prior designs avoided by having the entire length of the tailgate contiguous. The new configuration wouldn’t allow for a tailight design such as seen in earlier prototypes:

Curiously, the new prototype’s change would seem to make for an oddly shaped tailgate, with double the number of corners when down:

• visible at various glints are two anomalies on the top sides of each of sails:

unclear if these are merely access points for trim/panel fastening, or instead covers over some sort of attachment point for accessories, like racks, or tie-downs. Looking back over earlier prototype vids, there are parallel anomalies in these spots:

All-in-all, the sum of these changes makes the truck considerably less mad-max looking compared to the earlier prototypes - in a way I find more appealing. Similarly, the lighting design changes I find more revisionist 1980s future (ala Bladerunner) than the earlier prototypes - again a positive for me. The old light bar looks now seem dated.

Still, the newer prototype looks considerably smaller. I remember Musk referencing a necessary downsizing, though everyone seems to continue to site the dimensions from the reveal. If the envelope is in fact smaller, something I can’t put my finger on tells me the design of this truck could mean that reductions to the envelope can make for disproportionate reductions to the interior volume. Something about the angularity and roofline just suggests a possibly awkward space-human form interaction.

Not to say that will be the ultimate fact of it, but instead that it seems a challenge to be overcome.

No surprises the production version is somewhat neutered in its extremes, like: the V-shaped angle of the rear elevation now made more perpendicular to the ground, the unusual tailight housing embedded in the tailgate now moved to the quarter panel, the less aggressive wheel well flares. or the formerly minimalist bumper now having far more mass and familiar molded-plastic like form factor. As for the bumper, I assume this is largely driven by aerodynamics (but perhaps also covering a deeper storage well in the bed, for spares, etc?)

Surely many of these things pointed out may be old news to some of you, and the corrections/additions come flying in - here for it!

Love the work you went through!

 

[slomo]

The V shape could have been for structural reasons that was refined out with further design/testing.

I really hope that the rear view mirror is a camera screen. But my gut tells me that Tesla will cheap out and place the rear view on the main screen. Although I still expect some very cool camera/screen capability, including a surprise or two.

What still missing is all the nautical gear needed for crossing seas. Where do I hoist the quarantine flag while waiting for permission to enter Cyprus?

 

[Ogre]

I’m pretty sure most of this effect is simply a bit of fish-eye from the camera.

Cybertruck photos in general are hard to parse mentally because they have so many weird angles, but I’m pretty sure the tailgate is rectangular or very close to it. Doesn’t make sense for a truck which is skinnier on top to have a tailgate that is fatter on top.

 

[cvalue13]

I’m pretty sure most of this effect is simply a bit of fish-eye from the camera.

Nah, this boattail-like feature on the alphas has long stood out to me:

if you want to see it “in the round, the original release video shows this angularity - both the V previously discussed out towards :

And while I didn’t mention it above because it’s less obvious, also softened appears to be the angle back toward/over the bumper:

Compare that with similar-ish angles to the recent beta video which to me appear slightly decreased:

Doesn’t make sense for a truck which is skinnier on top to have a tailgate that is fatter on top.

Not sure what you mean by “skinnier at the top”, but the main ”pinstripe” bodyline of the truck stays/stayed about the same but “drop” downwards from there pulls in towards the tire. At the nose/tail, causing that midline to be the widest point, and the pull-in downwards mirrored by the pull-in upwards toward the cockpit apex. But that causes/caused the tailgate top (which behinds at the wider midline) to be the widest point of the vehicle

 

[Ogre]

I think this angle shows it best. Sides of the tailgate match the sides of the truck.

It is a bit bigger on top, but the image you showed with the red lines amplified the effect significantly. I think the big change here is the fact that the tailgate is no longer sloped outward. The OG had it sloped a decent amount and the newer versions (since the Cyber Rodeo) are closer to vertical.

 

[RVAC]

from a safety perspective, this movement of the tailight housing is probably driven by thefact that taillights should/must still be visible when the tailgate is down.

This design change would introduce a gap in any rear tailight bar, which gap prior designs avoided by having the entire length of the tailgate contiguous. The new configuration wouldn’t allow for a tailight design such as seen in earlier prototypes

That is why the original prototype had a secondary set of lights in that angled portion for when the tailgate is down.

unclear if these are merely access points for trim/panel fastening, or instead covers over some sort of attachment point for accessories, like racks, or tie-downs. Looking back over earlier prototype vids, there are parallel anomalies in these spots:

The rectangle highlighted on the OG prototype serves a different purpose, it's the button that actuates the vault cover.

The old light bar looks now seem dated.

Disagree. The most recent lightbar looks dated as it looks like it was made in the 1980's. The OG one actually looked futuristic.

Still, the newer prototype looks considerably smaller. I remember Musk referencing a necessary downsizing, though everyone seems to continue to site the dimensions from the reveal.

Agreed, I'm quite certain the original prototype was over sized compared to the dimensions that were shown on screen.

In another recent video, but seemingly showing an older beta (not yet with triangle mirrors, etc.) there appears a possible answer

That's one of the two alpha prototypes not beta.

 

[cvalue13]

Disagree. The most recent lightbar looks dated as it looks like it was made in the 1980's. The OG one actually looked futuristic.

To a degree this may just be ‘different strokes for different folks.’ But maybe I also didn’t express myself fully.

When the OG CyberTruck was revealed, its rear light bar seemed to me pretty forward-looking at the time. In fact it was. But now it is the future (compared to 2019), and so there are plenty of things like this on the market (or aftermarket) now:

Which to me means these sorts of light bars haven’t aged well on the CT, at least to the extent it’s aesthetic intent is to continue to be interesting.

Which brings me to the more recent prototype. When I said it looks “more revisionist 1980s future (ala Bladerunner),” I meant it is leaning toward a ‘Stranger Things’ sort of aesthetic that is interesting to me.

Afterall, check out Deckart’s sedan:

None of this to convince you to share my tastes, only instead to say that I think it’s an interesting move for the CT to rethink an approach to light bars that was maybe easier to wow in 2019 than today.

 

[Albern]

Cool write-up. Just adding these for you:

 

[cvalue13]

Cool write-up. Just adding these for you:

thanks! Right in line with something I was just looking at from the Rodeo:

Going back then to the Palo Alto proto:

Starts to seem like there’s a large, removable, piece of molding that reveals the sub-frame and hitch point, looking something like:

 

[TyPope]

Started studying the video from a few weeks ago out of Palo Alto, and was particularly interested in the rear end:

Several observations:

• the photo above’s angle emphasizes that the rear “window” is really more of a rear peephole; expected this when the years old ride-along video showed, below, a video-only rear view mirror

The more recent beta photo from the front, given some “computer enhance” adjustments for visibility, highlights the tech cluster up there behind the video rear view “mirror”:

• is that vault cover partially deployed, or is that as tucked in as it gets? Wonder how much that hangs past the rear window. Nice for shade, not nice for fitting furniture in the bed. Based on photos of earlier prototype beds, I’ve long thought that the reveal day tout of a 6’ bed is a bit slippery. The floor of the bed may be 6’, but the angle of the bulkhead appears to reduce the aperture by several inches. And if this vault cover adds a few more, it could end up a sub-5’6” bed aperture.

• Given the clean lines of the tailgate area, I can only assume this is the rear-facing rear view camera (given its height):

At another angle in the video, we can see this camera (?) housing has a theme-consistent wedge design:

• the next thing I noticed, is the body’s overall lack of “V” shape compared to past prototypes. Here they are alongside each other:

• above photo of an earlier prototype also provides a stark contrast to the newer prototype’s far less busy rear break/running light approach (contrast the below photo with break lights engaged vs the further first photo of the post with only taillights:

• the last two photos also emphasize the newer prototype’s larger black bar/trim running the top of the tailgate. (I suppose it’s possible - but unlikely - that this black bar conceales a full length running/taillight like seen in earlier protos, but which in the new proto is blacked out in daylight and only illuminates at night?)

• next, this rear photo - subjected to some more “computer enhance” for visibility, highlights some details about the new rear bumper (and aerodynamics?) kit below the tailgate:

If a person looks close enough and squints, they still might not make out any hitch point cover of some sort, obscuring an otherwise unobvious location that should be directly below the license plate/step cutout.

• another angle gives some additional detail on the rear bumper license plate/step area, including probably reverse lights (in red) and a cheeky little marker light/sensor/camera housing (in blue) at the corners giving both side and rear coverage (seen also in earlier prototypes):

• another noticeable design alteration highlighted by the rear view regards the reduced width and aggressiveness of the fender flares, note new vs old:

• also noticeable is a design change in the upper corners of the tailgate design. In the new prototype, the running/break light housing appears to a part of the rear quarter panel/sail, more like a traditional truck design, contrasted with earlier prototypes that appear to have housed the tailight in the tailgate itself:

VS

from a safety perspective, this movement of the tailight housing is probably driven by thefact that taillights should/must still be visible when the tailgate is down.

This design change would introduce a gap in any rear tailight bar, which gap prior designs avoided by having the entire length of the tailgate contiguous. The new configuration wouldn’t allow for a tailight design such as seen in earlier prototypes:

Curiously, the new prototype’s change would seem to make for an oddly shaped tailgate, with double the number of corners when down:

• visible at various glints are two anomalies on the top sides of each of sails:

unclear if these are merely access points for trim/panel fastening, or instead covers over some sort of attachment point for accessories, like racks, or tie-downs. Looking back over earlier prototype vids, there are parallel anomalies in these spots:

All-in-all, the sum of these changes makes the truck considerably less mad-max looking compared to the earlier prototypes - in a way I find more appealing. Similarly, the lighting design changes I find more revisionist 1980s future (ala Bladerunner) than the earlier prototypes - again a positive for me. The old light bar looks now seem dated.

Still, the newer prototype looks considerably smaller. I remember Musk referencing a necessary downsizing, though everyone seems to continue to site the dimensions from the reveal. If the envelope is in fact smaller, something I can’t put my finger on tells me the design of this truck could mean that reductions to the envelope can make for disproportionate reductions to the interior volume. Something about the angularity and roofline just suggests a possibly awkward space-human form interaction.

Not to say that will be the ultimate fact of it, but instead that it seems a challenge to be overcome.

No surprises the production version is somewhat neutered in its extremes, like: the V-shaped angle of the rear elevation now made more perpendicular to the ground, the unusual tailight housing embedded in the tailgate now moved to the quarter panel, the less aggressive wheel well flares. or the formerly minimalist bumper now having far more mass and familiar molded-plastic like form factor. As for the bumper, I assume this is largely driven by aerodynamics (but perhaps also covering a deeper storage well in the bed, for spares, etc?)

Surely many of these things pointed out may be old news to some of you, and the corrections/additions come flying in - here for it!

Well done. Thanks!

 

[Sirfun]

Nice observations cvalue13, I agree with you the first prototype isn't plum on the sides. Here's a photo I took of it at The Petersen. Notice the tires and security poles are plumb, but not the side of THAT Cybertruck.

 

[Sirfun]

Also, look at all the crazy angles in the tailgate. I think the changed the sides to simplify production.

 

[cvalue13]

Regarding the less aggressive fender flares, I was reminded of having some time ago come across a few aero studies done on estimates models of the CT. I remember similar outcomes to this example:

Now, the graphic attributes all that turbulence at the wheel wells to “pumping action” from the wheels, with no explicit call-out of the fender flares. But from my armchair, I can’t imagine those large flairs not contributing to an already turbulent area around the wheels. The back half of the flare would seemingly act like a an air dam to any turbulence coming off the wheels.

Not to suggest all fender flares are net negative to turbulence, as they’re obviously employed in sports cars for positive effects - bot those aero flares ain’t like CT’s off road flares.

That armchair view seems supported by this more recent aero study of the CT, which did explicitly call out the flares as a significant contributor to the turbulence:

[O] ur results show clear turbulent structures created by … the wheel arches’ “protectors”/surrounding edgy geometry… . The generation of the turbulent structures is caused by the sharpness of these edges. These geometrical features increase the drag of the vehicle, which ultimately reduce the range the CYBERTRUCK.”

Noting that the first aero study above estimates a pretty lackluster aero score for the original CT design, but Musk having later said they’ve put a lot of work into achieving class leading aero, maybe that effort included taming the Mad Max flares.

Moving away from the fender flares and back to the topic of the shape of the tailgate/boattail, the second study seems to call out the old design for similar turbulence issues:

​

Furthermore, due to the sharp rear end, the flow instantly detaches and creates a considerably big low energy area (wake), mostly noticeable behind the top and side rear-end edges.”​

So, maybe the reduction of the “V” shape in back also has something to do with aero improvements. Their photo demonstrates the “big low energy area” coming right off the outer tips of the “V” and dropping back behind the vehicle as wake

Sponsored