I didnāt go with the tire for the measure reference only because I thought the true āedgeā may be a bit hard to find - or defend
There is simply NOOOOO way it is 223 x 75, NEVER.
I thought that size has a 34.6" OD. Pretty close to 35" as we'd been told...
My googs says 33. But Iām no tireologist
What did you use to measure???? I just see no possibility this has my same long bed Tacoma wheel base as you measured, but the tires sit where they do.I didnāt go with the tire for the measure reference only because I thought the true āedgeā may be a bit hard to find - or defend
Collectively, y'all two win the April 1st prize.
Some 10 minutes of research could have solved it. One could have just looked at the sidewall, seen it was a 285/65/r20 (I referenced its availability just above), and so a 35" tire. Then, with 2 minutes of an online measurement tool (which I used in my OP as a breadcrumb, despite having access to measurement software), just plugged in a 35" tire reference measurement and found the rim is 22" not 21":
Hell, after @ĆCIII came in and nearly gave it on a silver platter (in the kindest of ways), I thought it was all over. But never underestimate the obstinance of the horde!
A lot of effort for an Aprils's fool... ? ?Collectively, y'all two win the April 1st prize.
The CT crash prototype is nearly identical to the unveil on-screen specs.
the above within +/- 1-2" margin of error I'd guess
- wheelbase is ~142"
- max width flare-to-flare ~82"
- max width metal-to-metal ~78.5"
- length nose-to-tail ~230"
And it proves a point about the sort of conduct on this forum.
Funny thing is, the ACTUAL possible source of material error in my measurements was my stated assumption about the rim's lip height. My stated assumption of 21," if off by only 1," would distort all subsequent measurements by 4.5%. That 4.5% is the difference between an F150 and (nearly) a Tacoma.
Stepping right over that all-critical assumption, the most Kool-Aid drunk amongst us instead doggedly fought about 'lens distortions,' perspective, and even how rulers measure. (!?) They continued to do so even in the face of researched, accurate, proofed-up refutations of those myriads of armchair chirps. (I'll return later to again prove up my positions on those topics.)
Yet the actual critical and flawed stated assumption was right there in the OP:
Some 10 minutes of research could have solved it. One could have just looked at the sidewall, seen it was a 285/65/r20 (I referenced its availability just above), and so a 35" tire. Then, with 2 minutes of an online measurement tool (which I used in my OP as a breadcrumb, despite having access to measurement software), just plugged in a 35" tire reference measurement and found the rim is 22" not 21":
Alternatively, for those feeling short on time or uninterested in research, the flaw in the methodology could have been most quickly and effortlessly determined by any version of a single question that was both skeptical and generous to the efforts and possible expertise of others:
"I'm surprised by these results - what would you say is the biggest possible point of error in your assumptions?"
Whether being handed the answer because you asked nicely, or because you cared to spend fraction of your time actually contributing, you might have in either event gotten what your inner child was demanding: pretty damn good proof the CT exterior is near dead-on of the unveil on-screen specs.
But instead only: "you're wrong, and I can prove it by saying 'perspective'... a lot."
This is a fairly typical dynamic here. Maybe I bring it out in people. But I see others subjected to it as well. (Though they're smarter than me, and relent/stop participating sooner.) I'm also probably guilty of it at times (glances at Mr. "parasitic profiteer"). But there are some deep, repeat, offenders.
There was a silver lining to all this subterfuge: it was kind of fun. I've never had good occasion to pepper a thread with Easter Eggs. But I got to lay several such eggs while the wild goose-chases about camera technology got frothy. I once even mentioned them:
Hell, after @ĆCIII came in and nearly gave it on a silver platter (in the kindest of ways), I thought it was all over. But never underestimate the obstinance of the horde!
Which brings me to the final point: in all of those goose-chases around lens distortions, perspective, measurements, etc., my responses were all pretty dead-on accurate. None of those unexamined, uninformed, critiques explained the measurement issue in OP.
As a final proof of this, here are the actual CT exterior photo measurements which come out to nearly identical (within and still subject to margin of error) of CT unveil stats (although wheelbase appears to have been improved).
Something tells me there won't be such vehement objection to these outcomes, despite all the previously asserted (and re-asserted) assertions about perspective errors being unavoidable in photos. (And if someone still feels tempted, they should know that such perspective distortions in these photos would tend to cause the CT to be in-world larger than these measurements.)
I will say, however, that for the interior photo (you might remember) I didn't use the rim as reference, but instead the checkerboard reference tape on the dummy's seat belt. The CT interior measurements still seem a bit dodgy RE potential interior space being a bit tight. Though (as admitted in OP) perspective is messy in the cabin area (given the nearness of camera and varying depths of objects of interest), so the measurements in this interior pic are more error-prone.
If there's ultimately any truth to the 5% shrinkage rumors, I'm left wondering if it could be largely related to interior dimensions?
not as much effort as Iāve spent collectively over dozens of threads witnessing the same exhausting pattern as seen in this thread.
the source of the above comments confusion is entirely on me, and the subterfuge of this this thread: I donāt stand behind the OP post shoulder width measurements taken from the exterior (which were all incorrect by design).
