INVESTOR DAY CYBERTRUCK BETA PRESENT! [w/ Walkaround Videos]

[JBee]

If I had more time I'd recreate the new CT bed in my Cybertruck CAD drawing I did in 2019, by using a point cloud to create a orthomosiac I can measure distances from.

As it stands just work backwards from outside width (of your choice), minus wheel width, plus about 10degrees of 4WS angle plus about 2" each side to find the minimum wheel well clearance you need. The rest is bed width.

Sponsored

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

Look at that big ass screen (BAS)

That or 'BAD ASS SUPER SCREEN'
'All About That ( BASS )'

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Not quite right at all. Your calculations are wrong for two reasons, and I’m happy to be clear why.

• First, you misunderstand perspective and measuring in photographs. I’ll show you why below. Using your assumed 36” light, I’ll show you how your methodology, corrected for perspective, says the bed is close to 4’ wide between wheel wells.

• Second, you misunderstand the point and ‘problem’ of the idea that “the CyberTruck as a 4’ wide bed” and so when you arrive at a clearly erroneous conclusion that the CT bed between wheel wells could be >61” you don’t realize your answer is nonsensical and so must mean your methodology is errored.

MISS-UNDERSTANDING PERSPECTIVE:

• ASSUME 36” LIGHT: Let’s start by agreeing for present purposes to your assumptions about the light’s width of 36”. In truth, these sorts of pixel tube lights for photography and stage lighting are available all manner of lengths. Professional lighting teams can have them made to any custom sizes they want. But let’s ignore that for now and accept your 36” assumption.

• ASSUME LIGHT IS CENTERED UNDER TRUCK: Let’s also agree that pixel light is centered, side-to-side, under the truck. (I’ll assume I don’t have to defend that assumption for obvious reasons.) But noting that the light is centered under the truck is important later in the work.

• DETERMINE LIGHT’S DISTANCE FROM CAMERA: Let’s next determine where the light is sitting, in distance from the camera. That’s important to determine because the photo has distortion from near field to far, as can be seen from this:

In the above photo, the yellow lines are all the exact same length. Conversely, the green lines are different lengths, but the tailgate itself is a rectangle and the same width front to back.

Perspective!

Accordingly, to use the width of the light as a ‘measuring stick’ for the width of the truck, it is remotely accurate only if the ‘measuring stick’ is used to measure the plane of the truck that is the exact same distance from the camera as the ‘measuring stick.’

So, relative to the distance of the camera,, where is the light sitting in respect to the truck? From this photo we can see it is sitting just forward of the rear wheel well (from the camera’s perspective):

Let’s call it being about right here, where the red arrow is pointing. (I actually think it could be a few inches further but I’m erroring in your favor.)

• ‘MEASURE‘ THE TRUCK AT THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE CAMERA:

In the photo below, the blue line over the light is identical in length to the red line in the truck bed - which line in the truck bed is directly ‘above’ the light on the ground (and so both the same distance from the camera).

USE THE MEASURING STICK TO DETERMINE THE WIDTH OF THE BED HUMPS:

In order to eventually measure the distance between the CT’s wheel wells (which is, in perspective, materially further back), we need a new measuring stick - the bed humps. (Which are evenly spaced in the truck, but appear to converge in the photo because of perspective.)

Our red line measuring stick in the photo above is placed over the centered humps of the bed (since the photo was taken from an angle, there is also distortion of “center” in the furthering field of the photo). That red line covers 11 bed humps. In other words, if the red light on the ground were picked up and placed in the bed, it would cover 11 bed bumps.

• USE 11 BED HUMPS TO ESTIMATE WIDTH BETWEEN WHEEL WELLS:

Because we’re really only trying to solve for the bed width in its narrowest portion (the back ~2/3rds), let’s look at the width of 11 bed humps in that narrowest section of the bed:

• EXTRAPOLATE TOTAL WIDTH BETWEEN WHEEL WELLS:

Now, because that yellow line above is what 36” looks like in the narrowest portion of the bed:

​

• if the bed is exactly 4’ wide total, we’d need to add another 12” to our yellow line above … which is adding another 33% of the length of the yellow line, which seems right but plausible​

​

• conversely, if instead we assume the CT’s distance between wheel wells is the same as the distance between wheel wells in an F150, 51”, we’d need to add another 15” or another 40% to the current yellow line - which is maybe possible, but begins to seem a stretch (or is it a squeeze?)​

• if we instead assume the distance between wheel wells is >61”, which is what you first conclude in your video, we’d need extend our 36” yellow line another 25” or another 70% to the length of the current yellow line. Not remotely correct.​

Which brings us back to the second issue with your methodology:

MISS-UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN CONCLUSION AND THE ‘PROBLEM’ BEING SOLVED FOR

When you arrived at the conclusion the CT bed between wheel wells was >61”, you should have realized your conclusion was nonsensical and so your methodology in error.

61” is the width of the widest part of an F150’s bed. That is, not between wheel wells. In effect, In trying to disprove that the CT’s between wheel well space was not so small as 4’, you wound up concluding instead that the CT’s distance between wheel wells was as wide as the widest portions of an F150 bed not at the wheel wells. Your conclusion was in effect that the CT was massive. Too massive for to be reasonable.

Looking over this error is probably because people are misunderstanding the actual “story” here.

Prior to these photos, people believed the CT bed would be wider than an F150 only insofar as early prototypes had no wheel wells. But these photos show not only does the CT have wheel wells, they run for what looks like the entire frontward 3/4+!of the bed length.

The CT needs only for it’s between wheel well space to be 4’3” to be on par with an F150’s between-wheel-well specs. People I think are incorrectly fretting over the idea that the CT could have a ~4’ bed between wheel wells, as that fact alone is somewhat uninteresting (or just confused) compared to the competitive specs of ~51” bed width between wheel wells in other 1/2 ton trucks. Between wheel wells, they’re probably about the same.

And 4’3” sounds a lot like “it’s 4’,” doesn’t it? If the Tesla employee manning the truck at investor day isn’t a truck person, he may not know that the difference between 4’ and 4’3” is material, functionally.

Instead, the bigger development is that the CT not only has wheel wells at all, it has them for upwards of 3/4 of the bed’s length. And that is a big swing from the early expectations that the CT would have no wheel wells, and so possibly have a 61” bed width the entire length of the bed. That’s a big swing in expectation.

Put differently, the story here is not that the CT has ~4’ between wheel wells (which is competitive with other 1/2 ton trucks at the wheel well), the story is that most of the CT bed has wheel well and so is “only ~4’ wide” for the majority of the bed length, rather than the expected class-shaking 61” inches wide the entirety of the bed length.

You typed up what I was too lazy to. Good Game.

 

[cvalue13]

If it wasn’t clear:

I’m not in my post above intending to use the light to conclude that the bed is ~4’ between the wheel wells. I was instead only intending to show that the methodology is too finicky to determine the answer to the only interesting question: if “~4’” means ~48” or ~51” between wheel wells.

And that methodology is finicky even if knew the length of the floor light.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I gotta believe the 6 seater CT is not off the table. The website clearly says it'll seat 6 comfortably...

Its my argument all over again. You can conjecture/wish/complain all you want but at the end of the day you either believe the company/Elon or you don't. I think that it is safer to believe the company/Elon

 

[cvalue13]

I gotta believe the 6 seater CT is not off the table. The website clearly says it'll seat 6 comfortably...

the website also shows door handles, no mirrors, no BAW, a SS bed with no wheel wells, and any number of things we know to no longer be true or to be deeply unlikely due information gleaned from any number of places

For those saying basically “I’ll believe NOTHING until I hear it directly from Elon’s mouth in an official release where he says he promises nothing will ever change again, ever” …

… little unclear what all you’re left doing on an automobile forum, other than pooping in the cheerios of those here trying to anticipate or dream up possibilities based on all available info (which is sort of the stuff of online auto forums).

to keep repeating incessantly that “nothing is certain until it’s an official release” is a pretty uninteresting observation … and not really an “argument” at all. It’s a platitude.

 

[Ogre]

Can you use the neon light to tell me which of these cars is bigger?

 

[SwampNut]

100% site is getting less usable. I get it you need to pay for it, but come on... Enough with the pop ups, giant banner at the top that you have to scroll past far enough where it finally retracts so you can see the page, and inline ads. Keep them to the side bar.

I run two ad blockers, one on the devices and one on the network. I havent seen an ad in years. It also removes the bullshit add ons like social sharing buttons and big banners. I recently set up a new computer and used it without a blocker. Gaaaaaahhhhh!! The internet is unusable with all that trash.

 

[the43k]

Not quite right at all. Your calculations are wrong for two reasons, and I’m happy to be clear why.

• First, you misunderstand perspective and measuring in photographs. I’ll show you why below. Using your assumed 36” light, I’ll show you how your methodology, corrected for perspective, says the bed is close to 4’ wide between wheel wells.

• Second, you misunderstand the point and ‘problem’ of the idea that “the CyberTruck as a 4’ wide bed” and so when you arrive at a clearly erroneous conclusion that the CT bed between wheel wells could be >61” you don’t realize your answer is nonsensical and so must mean your methodology is errored.

MISS-UNDERSTANDING PERSPECTIVE:

• ASSUME 36” LIGHT: Let’s start by agreeing for present purposes to your assumptions about the light’s width of 36”. In truth, these sorts of pixel tube lights for photography and stage lighting are available all manner of lengths. Professional lighting teams can have them made to any custom sizes they want. But let’s ignore that for now and accept your 36” assumption.

• ASSUME LIGHT IS CENTERED UNDER TRUCK: Let’s also agree that pixel light is centered, side-to-side, under the truck. (I’ll assume I don’t have to defend that assumption for obvious reasons.) But noting that the light is centered under the truck is important later in the work.

• DETERMINE LIGHT’S DISTANCE FROM CAMERA: Let’s next determine where the light is sitting, in distance from the camera. That’s important to determine because the photo has distortion from near field to far, as can be seen from this:

In the above photo, the yellow lines are all the exact same length. Conversely, the green lines are different lengths, but the tailgate itself is a rectangle and the same width front to back.

Perspective!

Accordingly, to use the width of the light as a ‘measuring stick’ for the width of the truck, it is remotely accurate only if the ‘measuring stick’ is used to measure the plane of the truck that is the exact same distance from the camera as the ‘measuring stick.’

So, relative to the distance of the camera,, where is the light sitting in respect to the truck? From this photo we can see it is sitting just forward of the rear wheel well (from the camera’s perspective):

Let’s call it being about right here, where the red arrow is pointing. (I actually think it could be a few inches further but I’m erroring in your favor.)

• ‘MEASURE‘ THE TRUCK AT THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE CAMERA:

In the photo below, the blue line over the light is identical in length to the red line in the truck bed - which line in the truck bed is directly ‘above’ the light on the ground (and so both the same distance from the camera).

USE THE MEASURING STICK TO DETERMINE THE WIDTH OF THE BED HUMPS:

In order to eventually measure the distance between the CT’s wheel wells (which is, in perspective, materially further back), we need a new measuring stick - the bed humps. (Which are evenly spaced in the truck, but appear to converge in the photo because of perspective.)

Our red line measuring stick in the photo above is placed over the centered humps of the bed (since the photo was taken from an angle, there is also distortion of “center” in the furthering field of the photo). That red line covers 11 bed humps. In other words, if the red light on the ground were picked up and placed in the bed, it would cover 11 bed bumps.

• USE 11 BED HUMPS TO ESTIMATE WIDTH BETWEEN WHEEL WELLS:

Because we’re really only trying to solve for the bed width in its narrowest portion (the back ~2/3rds), let’s look at the width of 11 bed humps in that narrowest section of the bed:

• EXTRAPOLATE TOTAL WIDTH BETWEEN WHEEL WELLS:

Now, because that yellow line above is what 36” looks like in the narrowest portion of the bed:

​

• if the bed is exactly 4’ wide total, we’d need to add another 12” to our yellow line above … which is adding another 33% of the length of the yellow line, which seems right but plausible​

​

• conversely, if instead we assume the CT’s distance between wheel wells is the same as the distance between wheel wells in an F150, 51”, we’d need to add another 15” or another 40% to the current yellow line - which is maybe possible, but begins to seem a stretch (or is it a squeeze?)​

• if we instead assume the distance between wheel wells is >61”, which is what you first conclude in your video, we’d need extend our 36” yellow line another 25” or another 70% to the length of the current yellow line. Not remotely correct.​

Which brings us back to the second issue with your methodology:

MISS-UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN CONCLUSION AND THE ‘PROBLEM’ BEING SOLVED FOR

When you arrived at the conclusion the CT bed between wheel wells was >61”, you should have realized your conclusion was nonsensical and so your methodology in error.

61” is the width of the widest part of an F150’s bed. That is, not between wheel wells. In effect, In trying to disprove that the CT’s between wheel well space was not so small as 4’, you wound up concluding instead that the CT’s distance between wheel wells was as wide as the widest portions of an F150 bed not at the wheel wells. Your conclusion was in effect that the CT was massive. Too massive for to be reasonable.

Looking over this error is probably because people are misunderstanding the actual “story” here.

Prior to these photos, people believed the CT bed would be wider than an F150 only insofar as early prototypes had no wheel wells. But these photos show not only does the CT have wheel wells, they run for what looks like the entire frontward 3/4+!of the bed length.

The CT needs only for it’s between wheel well space to be 4’3” to be on par with an F150’s between-wheel-well specs. People I think are incorrectly fretting over the idea that the CT could have a ~4’ bed between wheel wells, as that fact alone is somewhat uninteresting (or just confused) compared to the competitive specs of ~51” bed width between wheel wells in other 1/2 ton trucks. Between wheel wells, they’re probably about the same.

And 4’3” sounds a lot like “it’s 4’,” doesn’t it? If the Tesla employee manning the truck at investor day isn’t a truck person, he may not know that the difference between 4’ and 4’3” is material, functionally.

Instead, the bigger development is that the CT not only has wheel wells at all, it has them for upwards of 3/4 of the bed’s length. And that is a big swing from the early expectations that the CT would have no wheel wells, and so possibly have a 61” bed width the entire length of the bed. That’s a big swing in expectation.

Put differently, the story here is not that the CT has ~4’ between wheel wells (which is competitive with other 1/2 ton trucks at the wheel well), the story is that most of the CT bed has wheel well and so is “only ~4’ wide” for the majority of the bed length, rather than the expected class-shaking 61” inches wide the entirety of the bed length.

First off, thanks so much for the comments. Undoubtedly the most in-depth response I've ever received on any posting ever, with images!! I appreciate the education on image perspective. Ironically, my analysis ultimately was accurate, I assume you think it was just luck and not a good educated guess? So you understand, I started with the 36" light because I assumed it was the same size as the lights on the sides(maybe it still is). Using my 36" calculation it said the over bed size was 61". That result did raise an eyebrow with me. Which is why I thought, maybe the 36" light was too long an estimate. Assuming there isn't multiple length lights here, my assumption was that it had to be over 24" with the side of the CT door views, but less than 36". My 30" light size, makes the distance between the wheel wells in the ballpark of 51" which as you say is in 4'-3" range. So somehow we arrive at the same destination. As a side note to this conversation, it would seem to me that Tesla has made a very large oversight if it's not at least 4'+" between the wheel wells. A few inches to make sheets of plywood, sheetrock, etc fit with the tail gate down would be a big mistake.

 

[Ogre]

It’s not as bad as this image makes it look. I made a comparo versus my Model Y (because I had similar concerns). Short people might have issues, and looking straight sideways will be the big concern. Looking forward you get a bit better view.

The red outlines mark where the window on the Model Y would be for that seat.

 

[Ogre]

First off, thanks so much for the comments. Undoubtedly the most in-depth response I've ever received on any posting ever, with images!! I appreciate the education on image perspective. Ironically, my analysis ultimately was accurate, I assume you think it was just luck and not a good educated guess? So you understand, I started with the 36" light because I assumed it was the same size as the lights on the sides(maybe it still is). Using my 36" calculation it said the over bed size was 61". That result did raise an eyebrow with me. Which is why I thought, maybe the 36" light was too long an estimate. Assuming there isn't multiple length lights here, my assumption was that it had to be over 24" with the side of the CT door views, but less than 36". My 30" light size, makes the distance between the wheel wells in the ballpark of 51" which as you say is in 4'-3" range. So somehow we arrive at the same destination. As a side note to this conversation, it would seem to me that Tesla has made a very large oversight if it's not at least 4'+" between the wheel wells. A few inches to make sheets of plywood, sheetrock, etc fit with the tail gate down would be a big mistake.

I appreciate your efforts even when I might disagree with your methodology! (No sarcasm)

Regardless, 51” is likely very close to the mark.

 

[cvalue13]

Regardless, 51” is likely very close to the mark.

It’s unlikely Tesla would miss the truck basics of having the intra-wheel-well space large enough for a sheet of plywood.

What remains as remotely interesting (broken record) is the possibility that the majority of the bed is only 51” as opposed to the early prototypes without wheel wells suggesting a possibly enormous bed. That’s a transition from “far more bed width than an F150” to “materially less bed width than an F150”

But, they get 4-wheel steering out of the deal, and can probably still say ‘the bed is longer than an F150’ and/or ‘has the ~same bed floor area as an F150.’ Not a ridiculous outcome - if the four wheel steering accomplishes a materially better turning radius than competitors. Jury out on that.

 

[the43k]

What are your thoughts on an operational rear window? Since there is no pass through gate, I would think they'd have a working rear glass window. This would appease the vehicle campers with access to the rear thru the vehicle and likely help with temperature control.

Sponsored