How big do you WANT the Cybetruck to be?

[cvalue13]

@greggertruck

personally, comparing these three photos tells me most of what I need to know at least about that proto - one of these things will not fit a Grimes

Sponsored

 

[CyberSleuth]

One of the Twitter commenters (Mike at CyberOwners.com) made this chart that illustrates potential sizes:

Personally, I'd be happy with Nomad size. Maybe with the option to jack up the air suspension to Mako size when I'm feeling excited.

 

[Albern]

I voted for Full Size.

Extra space means utility and luxury. If production turns out to be significantly smaller such that a 6.5' bed or 6-seats had to be axed, 4WS wouldn't be necessary on a truck that is smaller / mid-sized.

I have so much more appreciation for these, especially after Investor Day:

 

[sstevens805]

I've been told you won't be upset

Have you been told if we'll be upset with the inside? Like people, it's what's inside that counts. I love me some thiccness, but those door panels were too much even for me.

 

[greggertruck]

Have you been told if we'll be upset with the inside? Like people, it's what's inside that counts. I love me some thiccness, but those door panels were too much even for me.

Matt wasn't inside the truck, no ones been in that beta that can talk about it. Yet.

 

[cvalue13]

4WS wouldn't be necessary on a truck that is smaller / mid-sized.

That depends. At least two rationales where it would “make sense” to have 4WS regardless if full or mid-sized. Tesla could either want to have it, or need to have it.

Tesla could “want” a truck that is [X] big but “turns like” a smaller vehicle, to make it excel in this feature relative to competitors.

Or, Tesla could “need” to have 4WS if others design factors of the CT cause it’s turn radius to be deficient compared to competitors.

Not all similarly sized vehicles perform the same in turning radius. It depends on the relative width of the vehicle, width of the tires, max steering angle, and - critically - wheelbase. If for other design reasons these factors collude against a vehicle’s turning radius, 4WS can be “needed” to achieve a merely competitive product.

The originally-released CT stats had the footprint of an F150 with 5.5” bed, but at some point (I’m not sure when/how) it became purported to have a wheelbase of 150” - which is 5” longer than the F150. If true, that extra 5” (plus if wider wheels, etc.) could collude against the CT to create a less competitive turning radius, despite having footprint. And it’s true that, proportionally speaking, the CT’s wheels appear pushed out ‘closer to the corners” than traditional truck designs. (Photos below not to scale in comparison between vehicles, but instead for noting the appearance of the CT’s wheels being nearer the ends.)

Whether mid-sized or full-sized, Tesla could want 4WS (in the case of making the vehicle better than competitors) or need it (in the case of making the vehicle merely competitive).

And if the CT could have a disproportionate market in urban areas (ahem), either the “want” or “need” could cause Tesla to go to extra lengths to improve turn.

 

[Ogre]

Matt wasn't inside the truck, no ones been in that beta that can talk about it. Yet.

No one has been inside, and lived…

 

[cvalue13]

Tomorrow we will be getting some pretty decent measurements from Matt. Don't expect them to be scientific, but they'll be good!

I suppose it’s nearly tomorrow already, but in terms of “measurements” how much more, would you say, will be revealed than what he’s already had on his Instagram video since investors day?

presumably a bit more context of his chat, but in his Instagram video he reports:

• plastic bumpers (to be 5mph compliant)

• bed is 6’ X 4’ (after the wheel arches “because Tesla needs the additional space for the

• “this model is pretty close to what will ship”

• 5 seater instead of 6

• they needed to make it 5% smaller so that’s why they can’t fit 6 seats

• no display above the wheel

• no pass through

• will have a frunk

• multiple tire options (this one on 285 R18”s)

 

[greggertruck]

No one has been inside, and lived…

YET

 

[greggertruck]

I suppose it’s nearly tomorrow already, but in terms of “measurements” how much more, would you say, will be revealed than what he’s already had on his Instagram video since investors day?

presumably a bit more context of his chat, but in his Instagram video he reports:

• plastic bumpers (to be 5mph compliant)

• bed is 6’ X 4’ (after the wheel arches “because Tesla needs the additional space for the

• “this model is pretty close to what will ship”

• 5 seater instead of 6

• they needed to make it 5% smaller so that’s why they can’t fit 6 seats

• no display above the wheel

• no pass through

• will have a frunk

• multiple tire options (this one on 285 R18”s)

That’s all old news now He measured the truck after. I wish he did LiDAR scans. Didn’t know that magic til earlier today. That’s fricking amazing!

 

[cvalue13]

That’s all old news now He measured the truck after. I wish he did LiDAR scans. Didn’t know that magic til earlier today. That’s fricking amazing!

interesting. So an iPhone measuring app or some such?

Those apps, based on a quick search-and-learn, appear to have error rates as low as 95% but possibly higher if not coddled into optimum process.

so where the interest around here for some measurements such as they bed could come down to the difference of a few inches over a possibly ~4-5’ span,…

as interested as anything to hear the context of the convos

 

[charliemagpie]

Matthew Donegan-Ryan says he has the CT dimensions, and will release a CT Vid this week.

 

[firsttruck]

.....
The originally-released CT stats had the footprint of an F150 with 5.5” bed, but at some point (I’m not sure when/how) it became purported to have a wheelbase of 150” - which is 5” longer than the F150. If true, that extra 5” (plus if wider wheels, etc.) could collude against the CT to create a less competitive turning radius, despite having footprint. And it’s true that, proportionally speaking, the CT’s wheels appear pushed out ‘closer to the corners” than traditional truck designs. (Photos below not to scale in comparison between vehicles, but instead for noting the appearance of the CT’s wheels being nearer the ends.)
.....

Most ICE designs typically have more body before the front wheels because of the huge high-temp hi-pressure cooling system with huge fan, air conditioner cooling, oil cooling, transmission cooling, and some of the length of the long ICE/transmission. The rear needs more room for exhaust systems stuff ( fuel tank, catalytic converters, mufflers, etc). Rear rear might also be elongated for stylistic reasons of balance by making rear length similar to front.

Most 100% EV designs do not need so much before/after the wheels but have the wheels closer to the corners because it allows for more space for batteries between the wheels. You also want all batteries to be between the wheels because that gives the best protection in case of crash.

 

[JBee]

That depends. At least two rationales where it would “make sense” to have 4WS regardless if full or mid-sized. Tesla could either want to have it, or need to have it.

Tesla could “want” a truck that is [X] big but “turns like” a smaller vehicle, to make it excel in this feature relative to competitors.

Or, Tesla could “need” to have 4WS if others design factors of the CT cause it’s turn radius to be deficient compared to competitors.

Not all similarly sized vehicles perform the same in turning radius. It depends on the relative width of the vehicle, width of the tires, max steering angle, and - critically - wheelbase. If for other design reasons these factors collude against a vehicle’s turning radius, 4WS can be “needed” to achieve a merely competitive product.

The originally-released CT stats had the footprint of an F150 with 5.5” bed, but at some point (I’m not sure when/how) it became purported to have a wheelbase of 150” - which is 5” longer than the F150. If true, that extra 5” (plus if wider wheels, etc.) could collude against the CT to create a less competitive turning radius, despite having footprint. And it’s true that, proportionally speaking, the CT’s wheels appear pushed out ‘closer to the corners” than traditional truck designs. (Photos below not to scale in comparison between vehicles, but instead for noting the appearance of the CT’s wheels being nearer the ends.)

Whether mid-sized or full-sized, Tesla could want 4WS (in the case of making the vehicle better than competitors) or need it (in the case of making the vehicle merely competitive).

And if the CT could have a disproportionate market in urban areas (ahem), either the “want” or “need” could cause Tesla to go to extra lengths to improve turn.

Tesla needed to place the rear axle further back to get the payload and towing specifications they wanted. With a high payload range you have to be particularily careful not to have a long rear overhang that leverages up the front axle when under full load. This negatively affects handling and steering, and is another reason why rear steering helps with heavy loads as well. Plus the whole trailer sway control it provides. Many vehicles "can tow" but few will tow as well as a CT with 4WS. I think this was one of the main considerations with 4WS given the extreme (for it's size) towing capacity.

The longer than F150 wheelbase has always been there, and was an issue the one time EM took it for a spin after the reveal, and cut across the curb on video.

 

[cvalue13]

Most ICE designs typically have more body before the front wheels because of the huge high-temp hi-pressure cooling system

Tesla needed to place the rear axle further back to get the payload and towing specifications they wanted.

Yes, yes, yes - lots of design and function that, as a byproduct, result in reasons the CT both “wants” but also “needs” 4WS, no matter the ultimate exterior dimensions.

So an iPhone measuring app or some such?

this appears to be the case, from the new banner on his YT page

Though the iPhone app measurements will be of some limited limitation, I’m still yet interested to see even just the rough 4” measurement of the flares. Really helps scope the vehicle for those of us who haven’t gotten to stand near one.

That’s 4” flare is also insight to a possible 8” of body “width” distorting comps to other comparisons - other than maybe the Raptor (which also gains ~8” from flares)

Sponsored