Crash Test Video Measurements For Cybertruck Dimensions

[S.H.Peterson]

..we have some true autists on here!

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

Using the grid on the floor is better than measuring a part and extending it over the image, but we don't know how big the squares are. Probably a foot, but they could also be 12" squares + 1cm lines.

ok, man

it’s “better” you say, and then I just showed you in detail how it results in ~identical outputs as my (“better,” btw) methodology - which you had previously critiqued (without basis) to no end

You decide to simply ignore the thrust of all that, despite all your prior critiques that are (A) shown as also incorrect via the on-floor method, and (B) now up against the agreement of both methodologies, which tends to cross-confirm both methods

at this point you’re so clearly being indignant on principal and despite reason or contrary evidence, that it’s reduced to mere trolling behavior

 

[savagecabbage]

Since in other threads, people are quite accepting and unskeptical (relevant to here) r grading using the on-floor grid marks as reference…

… I’ll use the same methodology in that other thread, which is to assume the test center’s grid pattern on the floor are a 12” grid.

This is a good and reasonable assumption, and I believe it is a 12” grid. However, I believe the grid is used for placing test equipment objects on the floor in known locations as well as being able to roughly measure the distance any debris travels, etc. In other words, the floor grid is not optimized for truck measurements. They do this only for rough measure (or else the grid itself wouldn’t have such thick/error-prone lines for lower detail)

This, and the fact that it’s difficult to extrapolate from the floor to places high on the truck, are reasons I didn’t rely on on the floor directly in my work. But I’ll come back to that “inaccuracy” and the effect it would have on measurement.

But since it’s now being taken seriously elsewhere, and it’s still instructive here, let’s do eet!

In the following photo, I selected a frame where

(1) the CT rim’s bolt patterns each had a pair straight up and down, from which to reference and confirm the centerline of the tire set and a vertical line to the floor (yellow lines below), and

(2) both wheels were as near as possible to a pair of the floor’s grid lines (red lines below)

here’s that photo followed by the relevant detail pics at the floor

Now let’s run those numbers.

The red lines above are 12 grid squares apart, or 144” apart.

The wheel center lines are (take your pick, folks, but) I’ll call it “about” 2” behind the front most wheel, and “about” 2” in front of the rearmost wheel.

Weird, using the ground grid marks assumed to be 12”, that amounts to a CT wheelbase of just at 140” (+/- 1-2”). Definitely not 149.9” (the unveil stat for wheelbase) - 10” shorter nose-tail than unveil.

Sounds so familiar:

It’s almost as if someone has thought through this.

Two additional opportunities while we’re here:

(1) if your (@Ogre @Crissa @TheLastStarfighter ) insistent misunderstanding of radial distortions we’re correct when using the floor grid as reference: it would mean that in the above photo the in-photo wheelbases would appear further distant from each other than actual in-world measurements, so the CT wheelbase in-world would be even smaller than ~140” … but don’t worry, that’s not how these pictures work!

(2) going back to this attempt at overhead measurement:

Despite in this thread all insistence on distortions of perspective, etc., over in that thread someone takes the grid from the floor then uses it to measure an object (the CT waistline/max length) we know to be ~4’ above the floor, and arrives at a measure of 220” - to which the same sort of person who is incredulous in this thread respond’s that it’s “exactly right” … despite the unveil stat stating the length is 231.7” - so 12” shorter.

Here again, if your (@Ogre @Crissa @TheLastStarfighter ) insistent misunderstanding of radial distortions we’re correct when using the floor grid as reference: it would mean that in the above photo the in-photo nose-tail length would appear further distant from each other than actual in-world measurements, so the CT nose-tail length in-world would be even smaller than ~220” … but don’t worry, that’s not how these pictures work!

And my numbers for nose-tail are a hair longer, at 222” (but +/-1-2”) - go figure.

Let’s then summarize and find a few more interesting cross-confirmations. Using the grid as measurement reference as gospel, we’ve determined (1) the wheelbase is ~140” (identical to mine) and (2) according to the other thread’s overhead measurement, the total nose-tail length is 220” (222” according to mine)

Since using and assuming the floor grid line as gospel, we’ve determined:

(A) the CT wheelbase is ~140” (~identical to my measurements), and 10” shorter than unveil stats (149.9”), but if material radial distortion is at play the in-world measure would be less than 140” wheelbase (but don’t worry, that’s not how these picture work)

(B) the CT nose-tail is ~220” (2” shorter than my measurements), and so 12-10” shorter than unveil stats (231.7”), but if material radial distortion is at play the in-world measure would be less than 220”-222” (but don’t worry, that’s not how these pictures work)

(3) let’s for sh*t’s and giggle’s see how those two reduced proportions would be roughly proportionate to unveil bed length stats

• 149.9” (unveil wb) -> (140” crash wb) = -9.3% reduction in wb length
  
  
• 231.7” (unveil total length) -> (222” crash total length) = -4.2% shrink

And we’re Tesla to have also proportionately shrunk the bed between 9.3% and 4.2%, from known on-stage max bed depth (6.5’) you get about a 6’ deep bed (at floor).

Tiles have grout lines, do they not? 1/4" grout line is pretty standard. 15 grout lines = +3.75"

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

ok, man

it’s “better” you say, and then I just showed you in detail how it results in ~identical outputs as my (“better,” btw) methodology - which you had previously critiqued (without basis) to no end

You decide to simply ignore the thrust of all that, despite all your prior critiques that are (A) shown as also incorrect via the on-floor method, and (B) now up against the agreement of both methodologies, which tends to cross-confirm both methods

at this point you’re so clearly being indignant on principal and despite reason or contrary evidence, that it’s reduced to mere trolling behavior

Not at all. I also don't care if you are right or not. I'm just pointing out that you are drawing conclusions using assumptions in all of your calculations and there is likely some error.

In the first you are assuming the camera location, and you are using a likely known measurement and extending it across the image. I believe the angle of view is creating some percent of error there. You can believe me or not.

In the second you are using the tiles on the floor. I'm saying this is more accurate because it is essentially like a ruler that runs the length of the vehicle, and the grid pattern allows for a fairly accurate extension of the lines. The flaw I'm pointing out here is that you don't actually know the size of the squares in the grid, or if the size estimates would include the width of the lines.

I think your investigation is a good estimate, but I also think it's off a bit and certainly not fact due to the assumptions used. You can take that or leave it, I'm not crapping on you or trolling you.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Tiles have grout lines, do they not? 1/4" grout line is pretty standard. 15 grout lines = +3.75"

Yeah, that was my first thought. Not sure if they are tiles or drawn lines though. In either case, if the interior of the square is a foot you'd have to add the width of the lines to the distance, and it would be what you are saying here.

 

[Dusty]

Using the grid on the floor is better than measuring a part and extending it over the image, but we don't know how big the squares are. Probably a foot, but they could also be 12" squares + 1cm lines.

You can test that theory of the squares not being 12" by finding out what the guesti-mate becomes using the alternate square sizes. The CT dimensions become either absurdly small or large for the alternate sizes.

Even by using what you see one thing is for certain that is a dead giveaway and removes all doubt that the CT is shorter than 231 inches.

The lower box on the cart (red arrow) is the dead giveaway. Specifically, the part circled in white. With the overhead camera view, if you look at the yellow arrow you see where the cart leg touches the floor. That yellow arrow is the absolute hard limit for the length of the CT because three things must be true:

1) That cart leg touches the floor and provides its exact location relative to the wall.
2) Looking at where the box is located on the cart (red arrow) relative to the cart leg (yellow arrow). The corner of that box (white circle) is between the wall and the cart leg.
3) It is absolutely impossible for the bumper bar (blue arrow) to obscure the corner of the box from the overhead camera without, at the very least, passing beyond it and over the top corner.

For me, I narrowed the longest possible length of the CT to be floor grid 18<--->19 where the cart leg touches the floor.

What we know—the size is definitely NOT more than 231". For me it adds up in my tiny brain that it's 220"-225" in length.

You'll say, using my logic, you still don't know the size of the grid squares. But, when you use any other size than 12 inches, and proofing against other features on the truck, it instantly produces nonsense feature sizes. The length becomes ridiculously long/short, the tires become tiny, the bed becomes too small to even compete with a wheelbarrow, etc.

But oddly, the BAW always stays the same size.

 

[cvalue13]

Tiles have grout lines, do they not? 1/4" grout line is pretty standard. 15 grout lines = +3.75"

you’re only describing one of only several reasons I didn’t use the on-floor grid as the basis of my original approach

that said:

(1) they aren’t tiles, they are an applied grid over concrete floor put there at some point by Tesla for some purpose (earlier videos of this test facility show the same concrete floor absent grid, and later videos -but before CT videos - show it with)

(2) because I assume people at Tesla are smart, if the grid’s intended purpose was to be used for any sort of spacial information, then such applied grid would have been applied at a standardized interval accounting for the width of the lines (eg either the center of the white lines is the relevant measure, or the inner edge, or whatever)

(3) whatever the standardized interval point (inner edge, center, etc.), for purposes of this thread, the placement of my red lines directly over the floor’s grid lines provides accurate overlap if relative size (or just choose whether the back tire is actually 1/2” further forward, and so the front tire is necessarily allSo 1/2” further forward)

 

[Ehninger1212]

LMAO this thread is just ridiculous

 

[Dusty]

I think this isnt ridiculous at all. It's the best info this site has sleuthed out in a long time.

 

[GlockandRoll]

I think people are so fascinated with the dimensions because it looks massive, standing by itself. However it's the same size as an F150.

Do we know if all models will have rear-wheel steering, as I'm hoping to have one easy to park in crowded Austin?

 

[ricinro]

Maybe the tape wouldn’t stick to the stainless

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/bonding...nce-of-adhesion/categorizing-surface-energy/#

Tape adheres well to high surface energy materials like metals.

 

[Ehninger1212]

I think this isnt ridiculous at all. It's the best info this site has sleuthed out in a long time.

But like...

 

[greggertruck]

I love this thread, I love conjecture, most of all; I love talking Cybertruck.

The release vehicle is absolutely NOT smaller/shorter than my Tacoma. Don't stop reading.

I daily drive a 2016 Tacoma 6' bed 4 door truck, this is my Taco truck:

I love this truck. But it's smaller inside. It's not a "real truck" in a lot of eyes, but that's beside the point.

This Tacoma is, as it stands with it's 4 full size doors and 6' bed.. 225.5" per manufacturer spec from Toyota. The feet are a 265/65R17 (if you're into that kinda thing)

The Cybertruck has seemingly more leg room, a bit more width, and is claimed to ALSO have a 6' bed, while originally a 6.5' (but thats a song for another time). It very much appears they borrowed from the front end / frunk in the form of a super long dashboard, likely containing many of the AC / computer components, but you can not make this thing like a VW bus and has peoples feet on the axle. Very unsafe. Franz actually joked about this on his Motortrend podcast.

I've said it before, Cybertruck is going to be the size of this truck, but it'll be ever so slightly longer due to it being geared toward the full size F150 audience.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong and I'll take it to the chin if so, but I am highly confident they didn't shrink it that substantially. We've been told "even 5% is too much" by Elon in 2020, Franz has said "a couple percentage points" (January 2023 podcast). The word "couple" means 2. So, 2% shrink on a 231.7" length would land it at... 227.066"

 

[TyPope]

From the side, we know the tire size, right? can we not take that size and figure out how big the grid is? From there, we should be able to figure out the length with some reasonable amount of accuracy.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

You can test that theory of the squares not being 12" by finding out what the guesti-mate becomes using the alternate square sizes. The CT dimensions become either absurdly small or large for the alternate sizes.

Even by using what you see one thing is for certain that is a dead giveaway and removes all doubt that the CT is shorter than 231 inches.

The lower box on the cart (red arrow) is the dead giveaway. Specifically, the part circled in white. With the overhead camera view, if you look at the yellow arrow you see where the cart leg touches the floor. That yellow arrow is the absolute hard limit for the length of the CT because three things must be true:

1) That cart leg touches the floor and provides its exact location relative to the wall.
2) Looking at where the box is located on the cart (red arrow) relative to the cart leg (yellow arrow). The corner of that box (white circle) is between the wall and the cart leg.
3) It is absolutely impossible for the bumper bar (blue arrow) to obscure the corner of the box from the overhead camera without, at the very least, passing beyond it and over the top corner.

For me, I narrowed the longest possible length of the CT to be floor grid 18<--->19 where the cart leg touches the floor.

What we know—the size is definitely NOT more than 231". For me it adds up in my tiny brain that it's 220"-225" in length.

You'll say, using my logic, you still don't know the size of the grid squares. But, when you use any other size than 12 inches, and proofing against other features on the truck, it instantly produces nonsense feature sizes. The length becomes ridiculously long/short, the tires become tiny, the bed becomes too small to even compete with a wheelbarrow, etc.

But oddly, the BAW always stays the same size.

I'm pretty sure the squares are 12" by 12". The question is whether that's inside the line, outside or in the middle. You lose me on the cart.

Sponsored