Cybertruck Front Casting Analysis (and Frunk Implications) - 3 vs 2 Chickens

[MEDICALJMP]

This is all interesting and even a bit amusing but I have to say, wouldn't it be great if all this initiative and effort went toward more productive purposes? Perhaps a re-design of the Boca Chica launch site?

Blasphemy!

Begone, thou speaker of hate!??

Sponsored

 

[AlDente]

Blasphemy!

Begone, thou speaker of hate!??

Yeah I know, decries of hate speech are casually thrown around these days. Seems the Starships path to space is littered by more than just large chunks of concrete.

Luckily for those of us who are so anxiously awaiting our CyberTrucks, the complexities of CyberTruck manufacturing are considerably less challenging than the "successful" launching a re-usable monster rocket.

It's encouraging that they have re-opened the CyberTruck Reservations on the Tesla site. Still a $100 but the line does extend around the block.

 

[cvalue13]

It's encouraging that they have re-opened the CyberTruck Reservations on the Tesla site.

I don’t think it was ever closed?

In any event, I don’t think the design of boca chica suffers from a lack of resources - it suffers from a lack of information

which the recent destruction of boca chica helped to provide

it’s not as though if they took all the engineers from Tesla and put them instead at Space X there’s a bunch of work not getting done there

 

[AlDente]

I don’t think it was ever closed?

In any event, I don’t think the design of boca chica suffers from a lack of resources - it suffers from a lack of information

which the recent destruction of boca chica helped to provide

it’s not as though if they took all the engineers from Tesla and put them instead at Space X there’s a bunch of work not getting done there

Umm, it was in fact only recently put back up for preorder. I guess they thought 1.6M preorders wasn't enough.

As for Boca, I don't think it was a resource issue either. Quite the opposite actually ... I think it was a "what the hell, let er rip and lets see what happens" strategy. I only hope they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by firing that sucker. It seems they may have poked the Environmental Group bear in Boca Chica and, scared the shit out of NASA. Time will tell.

 

[JBee]

Umm, it was in fact only recently put back up for preorder. I guess they thought 1.6M preorders wasn't enough.

As for Boca, I don't think it was a resource issue either. Quite the opposite actually ... I think it was a "what the hell, let er rip and lets see what happens" strategy. I only hope they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by firing that sucker. It seems they may have poked the Environmental Group bear in Boca Chica and, scared the shit out of NASA. Time will tell.

According to the EM spaces talk, they based the erosion of the pad off the static fire test and expected it to little damage because of the layer of special fondag concrete they used. They think it might of gone wrong because the force of the launch was so much it pushed the concrete into the sand bed meters below, so the concrete cracked and broke apart from the pressure. So the hole under the launch pad was both stuff blown out of the hole, as well as the booster pushing the concrete into the ground.

Apparently, the booster thrust is like the world's largest cutting torch, and goes through 1" of steel per second. So now the trick is not to only make Starship reusable, but also Stage 0 on the ground....

They're also replacing the tanks.

 

[AlDente]

According to the EM spaces talk, they based the erosion of the pad off the static fire test and expected it to little damage because of the layer of special fondag concrete they used. They think it might of gone wrong because the force of the launch was so much it pushed the concrete into the sand bed meters below, so the concrete cracked and broke apart from the pressure. So the hole under the launch pad was both stuff blown out of the hole, as well as the booster pushing the concrete into the ground.

Apparently, the booster thrust is like the world's largest cutting torch, and goes through 1" of steel per second. So now the trick is not to only make Starship reusable, but also Stage 0 on the ground....

They're also replacing the tanks.

Yeah well, it looked like FUBAR to me ...

 

[RVAC]

Late reply as I haven't been able to check the forum lately.

good question - in short:

On one hand, in that photo is appears to start ahead of the triangle window

On the other hand, it surely has to connect to the lower body

thought this was worth a double-click

see the photo above in your quote, then:

in blue is the triangle window

in red is the location of the casting hanger mount

in green are the door hinges

yellow appears to me to be the forward slanting outermost edge of the firewall

again I wouldn’t die on this hill, and it’s still unclear to me how this would all flange with and permit of the intruding wheel well of the casting. But I’m taking a wild guess that this firewall seen in that frame photo has still not yet been trimmed up of portions of the firewall that get snipped out prior to attaching the casting?

but on the other hand, focus again on the above red location of the main casting hanger

the previously leaked frame photo did not yet have attached or trimmed all its relevant bits and bobs up at and under the windshield, as evidenced by comparing to the picture immediately above

Got it, I see the logic of it now.

Notice that @JBee ’s yellow drawn firewall above ends effectively where mine does, at the cartoon dude’s feet

But I see a problem(s) with where @JBee’s begins under the dash:

the CT windshield design creates a no man’s land underneath it. that space between @JBee ’s frunk and his firewall would be a total b*tch to access from the front of the vehicle for servicing anything ’behind’ the Frunk. It would be better accessed if at all from inside the cabin, by the dashboard lifting

so, combining the noman’s land that would be created by eg @jbee’s drawing, combined with the frame photo showing the firewall to appear to begin in front of the triangle window, the leaning firewall was collectively my best estimate

Totally wouldn’t die on that hill

but also if forced to choose I would pick mine over @JBee ’s line, which doesnt square with the frame photo, and also creates a no man’s land in under mid-dash area.

Not sure I can agree that accessing componentry behind the the frunk is going to be easier that way, with the way the windshield is angled you don't have much room to access that area from the cabin as there's little space available vertically. Unless you mean removing the whole dashboard IP but that would be a royal pain. I think access from the front would be more convenient, similar to how you reach the 12V battery on the Lightning.

Dimensionally speaking it was just a quick free hand drawing to illustrate the idea the front quarter panel may be slightly undersized.

I guess that means you somehow disagree with my overlay transparency photos?

because my drawn line quarterpanel’s are taken straight from the overlay transparencies. I didn’t exactly freehand them

Yes, possibly. Did you constrain the aspect ratio when re-sizing the overlay to match the background? I say so because when doing it myself I'm getting a result that isn't far off my freehand sketch.

I’m confused by the import of this?

Especially given:

That was just to point out that in all likelihood those are crush cans and they extend further out than the casting and act as hard point mounts, similar to how the tow hook eye on the Model Y screws into the crush can. In your diagrams you have the casting extending right to the forward edge of the vehicle.

that yellow line is right just about where the Lightning’s firewall is, for what it’s worth

and essentially where I see the CT’s being, in the main

understanding that firewalls are rarely a flat plane, and instead have all kinds of intrusions and humps

For what it’s worth, that deepest portion of the footwell is

• 22” from the leading edge of the dashboard

• 15” from the leading edge of the door surround (pictured in far left frame of the above photo)

that places it right about where the rear edge of the front tire sits in space

I was referencing the firewall only, the footwell is definitely going to be angled. Probably should have included it in the diagram for clarity, roughly something like this:

 

[cvalue13]

Not sure I can agree that accessing componentry behind the the frunk is going to be easier that way, with the way the windshield is angled you don't have much room to access that area from the cabin as there's little space available vertically. Unless you mean removing the whole dashboard IP but that would be a royal pain. I think access from the front would be more convenient, similar to how you reach the 12V battery on the Lightning.

I agree, all-around. Neither option makes complete sense for various reasons, and all else being equal I’d lean the direction you are in the quote above.

What was left, though, was reconciling that with the photo that appears to have the firewall beginning ahead of and attaching under the windshield.

Separately and also, a member on this forum purports to have seen photos of the Frunk open, and that the useable Frunk itself does not materially extend back into the under-windshield area.

So collectively, whether the firewall is there, or an panel to access equipment is there, the outcome is the same regarding the frunk itself.

As a result, the “leaning” bulkhead in my posts was essentially shorthand for “not storage”,
- but not explicitly explained.

Yes, possibly. Did you constrain the aspect ratio when re-sizing the overlay to match the background? I say so because when doing it myself I'm getting a result that isn't far off my freehand sketch.

yes I did, and at the entire vehicle level.

Your new overlay I’d say is still materially off.

A few breadcrumbs:

look at the underbody shot of the crushcans as relate to the lead edge of the bumper. Note also that for the underbody shot they’ve removed the bottom half of the bumper to reveal all of the crushcans etc.

You overlay would have there be two to three more lengths of crushcan between it and the bumper edge

Compare:

But maybe more persuasive for you will be to look at where your overlay has the casting’s forward wheelwell arch in relation to your tire

Did you attempt yours at the entire vehicle level, or just at the front? At the vehicle level, I suspect you’d find yours was oversized, with the roofline peak extending too far, etc.

That was just to point out that in all likelihood those are crush cans and they extend further out than the casting and act as hard point mounts

sorry, my response was to point out that yes those are the crush cans, and my OP has those labeled as the crush cans.

the crush cans are part of/formed into the casting - not a separate part later attached

if interested, go watch the video of Corey from Monro talking about this siimage (linked in the forum post titled “No Exoskeleton”) and he describes these

In your diagrams you have the casting extending right to the forward edge of the vehicle.

bit of illusion. Remember due to perspective of the shot being taken near field and mid-body, that the location of the forward-most portion of the STAINLESS STEEL nose panels will appear from this photo angle to be further “back”. But secondly, note that the BUMPER will extend forward of that.

Perhaps better seen in the overhead shot (the added line roughly showing the angle of view from the camera)

put differently, from the angle and nearness of this photo, it exaggerates the appearance of the leading edge being directly over the casting - but also, the crushcan portion of the casting does extend to the just under the stainless panels (and not too far behind the bumper’s upper forward-leaning edge edge)

 

[RVAC]

yes I did, and at the entire vehicle level.

Your new overlay I’d say is still materially off.

A few breadcrumbs:

look at the underbody shot of the crushcans as relate to the lead edge of the bumper. Note also that for the underbody shot they’ve removed the bottom half of the bumper to reveal all of the crushcans etc.

You overlay would have there be two to three more lengths of crushcan between it and the bumper edge

Compare:

But maybe more persuasive for you will be to look at where your overlay has the casting’s forward wheelwell arch in relation to your tire

Did you attempt yours at the entire vehicle level, or just at the front? At the vehicle level, I suspect you’d find yours was oversized, with the roofline peak extending too far, etc.

I used the close up not the full shot from the crash test as the resolution of the video isn't great, was a bit too fuzzy to cut out accurately. Also, as you mention below, the camera being further back in the full shot (mid section vs front axle) compresses the front.

sorry, my response was to point out that yes those are the crush cans, and my OP has those labeled as the crush cans.

the crush cans are part of/formed into the casting - not a separate part later attached

if interested, go watch the video of Corey from Monro talking about this siimage (linked in the forum post titled “No Exoskeleton”) and he describes these

That's the thing though if the crush can is the casting and hence extends that far forward it means that even a low energy crash will result in an expensive repair (fixing/replacing the casting) or totaling the vehicle. I think Corey may have intended to say crush can rail, which is this portion you highlight here:

bit of illusion. Remember due to perspective of the shot being taken near field and mid-body, that the location of the forward-most portion of the STAINLESS STEEL nose panels will appear from this photo angle to be further “back”. But secondly, note that the BUMPER will extend forward of that.

Perhaps better seen in the overhead shot (the added line roughly showing the angle of view from the camera)

put differently, from the angle and nearness of this photo, it exaggerates the appearance of the leading edge being directly over the casting - but also, the crushcan portion of the casting does extend to the just under the stainless panels (and not too far behind the bumper’s upper forward-leaning edge edge)

Yes, I was referring to the stainless steel forward edge. The upper lip of the front bumper does extend forward a bit, probably had to do it for pedestrian safety requirements in EU/AUS/NZ.

 

[cvalue13]

I used the close up not the full shot from the crash test as the resolution of the video isn't great, was a bit too fuzzy to cut out accurately. Also, as you mention below, the camera being further back in the full shot (mid section vs front axle) compresses the front.




That's the thing though if the crush can is the casting and hence extends that far forward it means that even a low energy crash will result in an expensive repair (fixing/replacing the casting) or totaling the vehicle. I think Corey may have intended to say crush can rail, which is this portion you highlight here:

Yes, I was referring to the stainless steel forward edge. The upper lip of the front bumper does extend forward a bit, probably had to do it for pedestrian safety requirements in EU/AUS/NZ.

in all, my proportions may be off in one or more of the overlays - but they were all zoom-ins from a whole truck overlay.

I think maybe we just focus on the underbody shot, in particular the outline in blue vs the other side angle shot, paying particular attention to the wheel wells.

in my photo above, I actually think the main casting rails are off by nearly whole length inset more, each needing moved inboard a step. The Monro video analyzing this shot says the main rails are actually the yellow bits viewable from underneath. If so, for every bit of length in front I may have been off, the volume of the Frunk may be offset by having had it too wide in my overlays?

nonetheless, looking at the blue outlines above for the wheel well arches, then this:

there’s just not that much truck forward of the wheel wells.Not too dissimilar from a Raptor F150, though, in that respect.

At the end of the day, any of these inaccuracies at the margins I can live with given that the thrust of the post was to get a rough sense that the Frunk is not likely to be the complete width of the hood, nor the complete depth of the hood tip to the dashboard - instead maybe half that volume seems available to the Frunk, give or take here and there

one other thing - when I showed your photo of where the casting wheel well arch nearly “touches” the front of the tire, it could be that this portion is far inboard of the tire such that the arch of the plastic wheel well that is near the tire is far wider. That view would be consistent with the Monro video saying the yellow bits are the casing main rails

 

[DPye_BC]

From Joe Tegtmeyer today:
Castings

 

[cvalue13]

From Joe Tegtmeyer today:
Castings

sure looks like it (and not the MY)

The view from cabin:

 

[cvalue13]

The rear view of the casting roughly squares with my prior guestimate of the bulkhead (above in dotted red)

as expected, it’s not a flat wall the entire breadth of the truck, as near the quarter panels the wheel wells slope back toward the cabin / hinge-pillar

makes for a bit of a ‘tub’, placed on its side perpendicular to ground, with the deepest part of the tub in the center 1/3rd of the truck, pooching in toward the frunk area - similar/same as with traditional footwells/firewalls

 

[RVAC]

That the wheel wells angle inward at a slope was never in doubt, the question is whether the firewall will follow that shape. It certainly could be the case but on the Model Y front casting it does not:

 

[cvalue13]

some spatial hand-holding

Sponsored