Crash Test Video Measurements For Cybertruck Dimensions

[Kremmen]

There were hints - but admit several amount to inside jokes (between me and myself):

Oh lord. Yeah, that's gold.

Sponsored

 

[Kremmen]

It wasn't an April fools joke (he posted on April 2), and it wasn't trolling. He was just mistaken and now is trying to say he was correct all along and playing a game.

I'm sorry dude but he had you hook, line and sinker. Even if this was a backpedal - it's not - at the very least the methodology is perfectly fine and *that's what you disputed here*. Even though the same methods have - as he's said - met with your approval elsewhere.

But all the tells are there; this is not some immature, embarrassed hand-waving exercise.

Read through it all again in one sitting. You might see it more clearly. He's lampshading a mindset and he got you perfectly.

(Happens to us all sometimes, I'm no better.)

 

[Kremmen]

I'm guessing nothing? If the dims we're seeing are the ones from the reveal slide then pretty much all the post-concept vehicles will have been about that same size...er...right?

 

[cvalue13]

You're confused. I would like the CT to be smaller than it is. You were wrong, and now you're trying to say it was a (terribly unfunny) joke. Better to be wrong than to say you wasted everyone's time, especially your own.

It wasn’t intended to be “funny.”

You see, from your side of the keyboard, whether my post was “wrong” is indescribable - believe what you want, I could care less if you demonstrate another incorrect subjective view.

But from my side of the keyboard, there’s zero subjectivity in the thread showing that every one of your critiques of my methodology was not just incorrect (that alone is fine), but specifically uninformed, rudely put forth, pig-headedly adhered to even in the face of copious clarifications, and devoid of any attempted genuine dialogue.

I mean, you genuinely and pig-headedly argued that rulers don’t work.

Showing THAT level of what - to me - amounts to widely accepted trolling on this forum, was the point of the post.

In this forum, that sort of trolling, when in line with the only acceptable dogma, is around here treated as esprit de corps

I return in this thread the same kind of disingenuous, dogma-driven, treatment … and the horde cries foul, foul, foul.

There we agree, that is not funny.

Move on.

 

[Albern]

This version, the Alpha prototype has been my favourite so far since it might be the most feature-rich; 6th seat, driver’s display, and 4WS. It is likely smaller than the original prototype, but by how much is the question.

 

[JBee]

Peace, not pieces, friends!

Now let's get along after the point was made.

---

With the CT girth "bulge" as highlighted in my last post, there is also another one in the front hood and windscreen, as well as the more obvious one in the front grill. It's actually quite curved and is why the roof apex line is also curved and not straight.

Another thing I noticed in the CT overhead shot is that they have a slight twist in the body sidewalls as well, meaning the front wheel well covers are exposed and visible from the top, but the rear ones are not. This, is primarily because of aerodynamics I would assume, in that airflow that rolls off the front stays tucked in along the sides. This follows on to another change in the bed area and that is the rear sail wall thickness near the tailgate. I think that has lost an inch or two as well, and they have curved the line from the roof apex to tailgate as well. It might be exaggerated a bit from lensing, but compared to the straight bed wall internals it curved.

In the underbody shot I also think the front motor assembly is shown, above the coloured x structural frames. If it is the motor it's tiny now, thanks no doubt to the high rpm CF wrap giving it greater power density. I also think one motor is in front of the driveshafts and one behind now, so its less wide than the plaid. This configuration allows for long wheel suspension arms and longer drive shafts, which should keep those CV angles in check, given that is why the Plaid has to do the Cheetah stance to launch so it doesn't snap them.

It's nice to see these features come true whilst they design optimised it from the OP.

 

[cvalue13]

It is likely smaller than the original prototype, but by how much is the question.

exactly. The size of the production model has been a question at all, because we know from various Elon musk statements that the onstage prototype at unveil had different dimensions than the on screen production specs provided at unveil. This thread walks through each of Elon‘s comments, describing the differences in sizes, and some waffling over the years about how much they might shrink from the on stage prototype.

Importantly, though, any statements of %’s of sizing changes are either about only a single dimension (ie only width) or otherwise short-hand generalizations. It’s unlikely Tesla would just uniformly “shrink” every single dimension and component of the truck by exactly 5% in cad and say, “there it is!”

Combined with the investor day prototype speculations about having a shorter bed, appearing to have diminished interior dimensions, etc., all the sizing questions made it interesting for some of us to wonder where the production model may land.

Personally, the availability of these crash test dimensions leads me to (1) believe the exterior production size will be near identical to the unveil on screen dimensions, and (2) remain curious about the resulting interior dimensions that result from the production sizing.

One unveil on screen dimension that the crash test measurements suggest has reduced, is the best one: the wheelbase. The on-screen specs suggested a wheelbase longer than an F150 SCREW, which would be less than ideal for both the CTs turning and break-over compared to an F150. Seems now that the production CT could instead have a wheelbase a few inches shorter than an F150, and have 4WS, which means the CT could have:

• F150 exterior envelope dimensions, standard
• maneuverability as good or better than a short-bed Tacoma, standard
• at the top trim, payload/towing equivalent to modern 3/4 ton trucks

If Tesla accomplishes all that and honors unveil pricing (or anywhere reasonably close), the CT will be an undeniable unicorn compared to even any available ICE truck

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

It wasn’t intended to be “funny.”

You see, from your side of the keyboard, whether my post was “wrong” is indescribable - believe what you want, I could care less if you demonstrate another incorrect subjective view.

But from my side of the keyboard, there’s zero subjectivity in the thread showing that every one of your critiques of my methodology was not just incorrect (that alone is fine), but specifically uninformed, rudely put forth, pig-headedly adhered to even in the face of copious clarifications, and devoid of any attempted genuine dialogue.

I mean, you genuinely and pig-headedly argued that rulers don’t work.

Showing THAT level of what - to me - amounts to widely accepted trolling on this forum, was the point of the post.

In this forum, that sort of trolling, when in line with the only acceptable dogma, is around here treated as esprit de corps

I return in this thread the same kind of disingenuous, dogma-driven, treatment … and the horde cries foul, foul, foul.

There we agree, that is not funny.

Move on.

At least we can agree that you were wrong and aren’t funny.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I'm sorry dude but he had you hook, line and sinker. Even if this was a backpedal - it's not - at the very least the methodology is perfectly fine and *that's what you disputed here*. Even though the same methods have - as he's said - met with your approval elsewhere.

But all the tells are there; this is not some immature, embarrassed hand-waving exercise.

Read through it all again in one sitting. You might see it more clearly. He's lampshading a mindset and he got you perfectly.

(Happens to us all sometimes, I'm no better.)

He didn’t lampshade me on anything. He made calculations based on either assuming he could accurately project the wheel width or that the tiles were exactly 12” line to line (he hasn’t admitted that one yet). The second one was to attempt to prove his predetermined conclusion on the first. Both were flawed. His methodology was flawed. This is why it’s error, not trolling.

 

[cvalue13]

He didn’t lampshade me on anything. He made calculations based on either assuming he could accurately project the wheel width or that the tiles were exactly 12” line to line (he hasn’t admitted that one yet). The second one was to attempt to prove his predetermined conclusion on the first. Both were flawed. His methodology was flawed. This is why it’s error, not trolling.

You still have no clue what you’re talking about, and the content of your posts continue to show you don’t even understand the conversation.

at this point, it’s either trolling, or it’s special needs

take your pick

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

You still have no clue what you’re talking about, and the content of your posts continue to show you don’t even understand the conversation.

at this point, it’s either trolling, or it’s special needs

take your pick

Best April Fools ever!

 

[cvalue13]

Best April Fools ever!

for some more than others!

 

[CyberGus]

Y'all need Jesus

 

[Crissa]

None. This is the Beta 1 prototype.

-Crissa

 

[Albern]

None. This is the Beta 1 prototype.

-Crissa

That's interesting if that's the case. If so, where was volume added to the front row such that the space in the middle could no longer practically occupy the 6th seat?

The front door modules maybe? They do look a lot thicker.

Sponsored