New Naked Cybertruck BIW Pics + Analysis!

[AlexD]

Analysis by ₮ƧLλ ₱H∅ΞN!X

I'm noticing 2 holes in the back. Maybe for electronics, maybe HVAC for #campmode. 3 child seat loops under the back window. Asymmetrical firewall means no right hand drive yet.​

​

It's now a fairly conventional monocoque construction.
It was conceived to be an exoskeleton and as such had heavy gauge stainless steel body panels because they were intended to be structural. They are no longer required to be structural and are just external body cladding which are traditionally made of pretty thin gauge body panels. I ask the question (and Crista, I am not trolling!) does this not make the Cybertruck unnecessarily heavy?

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

It's now a fairly conventional monocoque construction.
It was conceived to be an exoskeleton and as such had heavy gauge stainless steel body panels because they were intended to be structural. They are no longer required to be structural and are just external body cladding which are traditionally made of pretty thin gauge body panels. I ask the question (and Crista, I am not trolling!) does this not make the Cybertruck unnecessarily heavy?

Well I'm not Crista (and neither is Crissa ) but...

Yeah, if the panels are not structural, then they're just baggage, and any excess weight is likely unwarranted. The doors can be "exoskeletons" as a separate assembly, Tesla even has a patent for such a door with no internal ribbing/bracing needed. But making the quaterpanels 3mm when not providing structure is just providing armor, which may or may not be of value for the weight.

 

[JBee]

It's now a fairly conventional monocoque construction.
It was conceived to be an exoskeleton and as such had heavy gauge stainless steel body panels because they were intended to be structural. They are no longer required to be structural and are just external body cladding which are traditionally made of pretty thin gauge body panels. I ask the question (and Crista, I am not trolling!) does this not make the Cybertruck unnecessarily heavy?

Um yes and no. The design is still a hybrid, for example: the doors are "exoskeleton" in that the stainless door skin supports the structure of the door, so it can open, and although it doesn't support the cabin frame, it does stop sideways ingress in a t-bone collision. So the mass of the stainless skin is put to good use there in the doors. The roof and windscreen can also be considered "exoskeleton" in that they act as a structural surface as well. However, the primary cabin structure is from pressed steel frame with a structural battery pack underneath and the front and rear castings. All up it's only the front and rear quarter fenders that are attached to the underlying frame, and as such the front ones aren't very large.

The opening stainless panels like the doors weigh around 400lbs (180kg), and all fixed panels like the fenders weigh 218lbs (99kg) which is around 616lbs all up using 3mm 304 stainless. Which is about 400lbs more than standard 0.7mm sheet metal would weigh that is used in a normal vehicle, but wouldn't be as tough, and would need paint and a $0.5b paint shop. That's a $500 markup on a million Cybertrucks just to pay for the paintshop, but not even the paint. In comparison all the stainless on the CT costs just $977 for 3mm thick and doesn't have to be painted at all. So for the customer it's a win as well.

 

[CyberGus]

"[0029] FIG. 5 shows an exploded view of one embodiment of a door 500 comprising an exoskeleton exterior panel ...Because the exterior panel 502 is made from a durable material (e.g. steel, aluminum or other metals) there is no need for an interior anti-intrusion bar or other elements to protect the passengers from a side door strike found in conventional vehicle door assemblies like the door shown in FIG. 1, which includes additional components such as anti-intrusion bar 104 and mid-panel 106."

https://uspto.report/patent/app/20210155292

 

[Mrp911]

Looking at these now on my big monitor, not feeling optimistic for a roll-down rear window

I'd expect the window to be on the internal/cab side of the bulkhead. If so, it would be certain it would be behind the child seat tethers.

But in the photo below, the various relief features of the bulkhead, especially the child seat tethers, appear to leave no room behind the tethers for a channel in which the window would recede.

In theory that could leave the possibility that the window instead is installed on the bed side of the bulkhead. I suppose that would be possible, if surprising?

That said, given that behind this bulkhead on the bed side will be a second bulkhead of the bed, in between which the tonneau will retract and store, it's hard to view the below photo with 'normal construction' assumptions on what is possible back here.

And for what it's worth, there wouldn't appear yet to be any particular features back here that would make impossible/unlikely that a rear window channel could be placed here to fit the ~size of a rear window - the blue 'window' squares below are identical in size

Nice work with the overlay. My money is on retractable window.

 

[cvalue13]

Let me level-set:

Most days I read threads about 500mi range being a deal-killer (it's not for me), material price increases being a deal-killer (it's not for me). I also read threads about the lack of a 3rd front seat being a deal-killer, which in and of itself is not for me a deal-killer - I don't need a 3rd person up front.

But I have watched the 3rd front seat discussions closely because, to me, they are the canary in the coal mine regarding the back seat. For me, the nearest thing to a deal-killer is the width of the CT rear seat being a true/substantive 3-seat offering.

On that point, the most recent GFTX BIW shots from overnight provided some of the best intel yet on the proportions of the CT's rear seat configuration and the relative proportions of the three seating areas.

I'm sorry if my discouragement is viewed by some as a downer, but if we get dozens of pricing and range thread downers, I'd hope my own personal item of interest deserves at least equal airing.

Also, I suspect that this issue isn't limited to my use case, but anyone who "needed" a 3rd front seat presumably needed substantive seating for 6 in some instances. Or fleet buyers need substantive seating for 5, etc.

Last night on first pass of the new BIW photos, I posted this:

Some encouraging but mixed intel in this photo:

across the top, the three black tabs, are mandated top tether anchors for attaching car seats - centered to headrests/seat centerline

that it provides for three is the good news

the rest I leave to specs and reviews, but, showing proportions of the three seats and approximating the main headrests:

Rivian R1T

F150

The overnight BIW photos and my overnight post about it above, continue to point towards the front seat console proportionsmirrored in the CT's back seat proportions.

That is to say, the CT back seat is appearing far more Rivian-like than F150-like. Maybe the CT is somewhere in the middle - but even then, less than an F150 much at all is the threshold of concern.

For example, in an F150 3 full-sized car seats barely fit across its width. That the CT has three child rear tethers shows it will be prepared to accept 3 car seats and/or booster seats, but not all car seats are made alike.

Worth pointing out how only ~6" of difference are between a Rivian R1T back seat vs an F150 back seat is little. But those 6" are meaningful.

Rivian R1T:
Second Row Head Room (inches): 39.7
Second Row Leg Room (inches): 36.6
Second Row Shoulder Room (inches): 58.9
Second Row Hip Room (inches): 54.2

Ford F150 SCREW:

Second Row Head Room (inches): 40.4
Second Row Leg Room (inches): 43.6
Second Row Shoulder Room (inches): 66
Second Row Hip Room (inches): 62.6

So, only ~6" is the difference between the F150's cavernous rear seat width, vs the Rivain R1T's Will Shatner-squeezing Tacoma-like seat. Most of us have been in the back seat of Rivian-like trucks to know why the outermost passengers put their shoulders/elbows over the window sill, and why the middle adult leans a bit forward to free their shoulders:

View attachment 22116



Also worth mentioning that the Rivian R1T and the Ford F150 SCREW are nearly identical in exterior width (in fact the R1T is wider than an F150), but construction/packaging differences make for this 6" smaller Rivian interior width. The Rivian, for example, has large rear fender flares that distort the relevant packaging room for the rear interior.

Accordingly, estimates regarding the CT's exterior width are only nominally informative to any assumptions about the separate question of the CT's interior packaging.

All the above said, some additional visual clues regarding the CT's interior rear seat dimensions and/or relative seat sizes across the back.

View attachment 22117

View attachment 22119


View attachment 22120


View attachment 22123




On this next set, in the first photo first notice the piping that demarks the seat edges (red arrows), in particular the piping on the back seat demarking the edge of the passenger rear seat (note that seat's bottom is folded upwards)

View attachment 22124


View attachment 22125



Which altogether has me arriving at a rough relative proportion such as the below


View attachment 22127


Which again, looks a lot more like the below first rather than second:


View attachment 22128


View attachment 22129

 

[AlexD]

Um yes and no. The design is still a hybrid, for example: the doors are "exoskeleton" in that the stainless door skin supports the structure of the door, so it can open, and although it doesn't support the cabin frame, it does stop sideways ingress in a t-bone collision. So the mass of the stainless skin is put to good use there in the doors. The roof and windscreen can also be considered "exoskeleton" in that they act as a structural surface as well. However, the primary cabin structure is from pressed steel frame with a structural battery pack underneath and the front and rear castings. All up it's only the front and rear quarter fenders that are attached to the underlying frame, and as such the front ones aren't very large.

The opening stainless panels like the doors weigh around 400lbs (180kg), and all fixed panels like the fenders weigh 218lbs (99kg) which is around 616lbs all up using 3mm 304 stainless. Which is about 400lbs more than standard 0.7mm sheet metal would weigh that is used in a normal vehicle, but wouldn't be as tough, and would need paint and a $0.5b paint shop. That's a $500 markup on a million Cybertrucks just to pay for the paint shop, but not even the paint. In comparison all the stainless on the CT costs just $977 for 3mm thick and doesn't have to be painted at all. So for the customer it's a win as well.

Extra weight is the devils only friend.
What am I missing.
?
The exoskeleton concept is the classical jet aircraft design concept where the entire strength comes from the outer skin. When the Cybertruck was announce it was going to be built as an exoskeleton using special hardened 3mm stainless steel (as a bonus it didn't require painting). Now the funky (ugly?) shape was a direct function of that 3 mm ss can't be stamped in a body panel press and could only be bent, so design followed function which is all well and good.
Somewhere along the line and without any fanfare, the exoskeleton concept was quietly dropped. For better or for worse??
We seem to be preoccupied with the windshield wiper design, the shape of the mirrors and number of cup holders but no one brings up that the fundamental concept has drastically changed. That just quietly slipped in!
Am I missing something? Not to say that the changes are for the worse, but I certainly believe they warrant discussion and should not be quietly ignored.

 

[Prime8]

Good analysis.
Also this photo highlights again how high the rear door windows are placed. The sill comes up to the midpoint of the headrest.

 

[fritter63]

Looking at these now on my big monitor, not feeling optimistic for a roll-down rear window

Yeah, a little disappointing but not a deal breaker for me.

Drove a Toyota ('86) for 14 years with a fixed back window. Wasn't really an issue.

 

[Prime8]

Yeah, a little disappointing but not a deal breaker for me.

Drove a Toyota ('86) for 14 years with a fixed back window. Wasn't really an issue.

Yeah it's one of those things you don't miss until you've had one imo. I had a Tundra crewcab and the huge rear window powering down was awesome for bed access.

 

[CyberGus]

Note these BIW photos were taken in Section T52:

This is squarely in the "Body-in-White" assembly section of the factory.

Credit to Joe Tegtmeyer for the illustration

 

[fritter63]

So, only ~6" is the difference between the F150's cavernous rear seat width, vs the Rivain R1T's Will Shatner-squeezing Tacoma-like seat. Most of us have been in the back seat of Rivian-like trucks to know why the outermost passengers put their shoulders/elbows over the window sill, and why the middle adult leans a bit forward to free their shoulders:

It's been a LONG time since Bill could fit into that yellow Star Trek tunic (even with the girdle on).

 

[JBee]

Let me level-set:

Most days I read threads about 500mi range being a deal-killer (it's not for me), material price increases being a deal-killer (it's not for me). I also read threads about the lack of a 3rd front seat being a deal-killer, which in and of itself is not for me a deal-killer - I don't need a 3rd person up front.

But I have watched the 3rd front seat discussions closely because, to me, they are the canary in the coal mine regarding the back seat. For me, the nearest thing to a deal-killer is the width of the CT rear seat being a true/substantive 3-seat offering.

On that point, the most recent GFTX BIW shots from overnight provided some of the best intel yet on the proportions of the CT's rear seat configuration and the relative proportions of the three seating areas.

I'm sorry if my discouragement is viewed by some as a downer, but if we get dozens of pricing and range thread downers, I'd hope my own personal item of interest deserves at least equal airing.

Also, I suspect that this issue isn't limited to my use case, but anyone who "needed" a 3rd front seat presumably needed substantive seating for 6 in some instances. Or fleet buyers need substantive seating for 5, etc.

Last night on first pass of the new BIW photos, I posted this:







The overnight BIW photos and my overnight post about it above, continue to point towards the front seat console proportionsmirrored in the CT's back seat proportions.

That is to say, the CT back seat is appearing far more Rivian-like than F150-like. Maybe the CT is somewhere in the middle - but even then, less than an F150 much at all is the threshold of concern.

For example, in an F150 3 full-sized car seats barely fit across its width. That the CT has three child rear tethers shows it will be prepared to accept 3 car seats and/or booster seats, but not all car seats are made alike.

Worth pointing out how only ~6" of difference are between a Rivian R1T back seat vs an F150 back seat is little. But those 6" are meaningful.

Rivian R1T:
Second Row Head Room (inches): 39.7
Second Row Leg Room (inches): 36.6
Second Row Shoulder Room (inches): 58.9
Second Row Hip Room (inches): 54.2

Ford F150 SCREW:

Second Row Head Room (inches): 40.4
Second Row Leg Room (inches): 43.6
Second Row Shoulder Room (inches): 66
Second Row Hip Room (inches): 62.6

So, only ~6" is the difference between the F150's cavernous rear seat width, vs the Rivain R1T's Will Shatner-squeezing Tacoma-like seat. Most of us have been in the back seat of Rivian-like trucks to know why the outermost passengers put their shoulders/elbows over the window sill, and why the middle adult leans a bit forward to free their shoulders:

View attachment 22116



Also worth mentioning that the Rivian R1T and the Ford F150 SCREW are nearly identical in exterior width (in fact the R1T is wider than an F150), but construction/packaging differences make for this 6" smaller Rivian interior width. The Rivian, for example, has large rear fender flares that distort the relevant packaging room for the rear interior.

Accordingly, estimates regarding the CT's exterior width are only nominally informative to any assumptions about the separate question of the CT's interior packaging.

All the above said, some additional visual clues regarding the CT's interior rear seat dimensions and/or relative seat sizes across the back.

View attachment 22117

View attachment 22119


View attachment 22120


View attachment 22123




On this next set, in the first photo first notice the piping that demarks the seat edges (red arrows), in particular the piping on the back seat demarking the edge of the passenger rear seat (note that seat's bottom is folded upwards)

View attachment 22124


View attachment 22125



Which altogether has me arriving at a rough relative proportion such as the below


View attachment 22127


Which again, looks a lot more like the below first rather than second:


View attachment 22128


View attachment 22129

Kids grow up so fast though...by the time you get your CT they probably don't need a carseat or booster seat anymore? ??

But then again once they're in their teens they won't fit in the back, and don't want to come with either...lol.

I must be showing my age by now. Certainly feeling it.

I'm not sure if you've sat in the rear of a MY before, but it's surprisingly comfy and a useable space even for me. I'm pretty big for a rear seat passenger with my 6"6 and all, but the flat floor and higher front seats give it good space, and I expect the packaging of the CT to be just as good. The rear seat width is however something that might be a bit smaller, but I think you will get away with it to have 3 kid seats installed. At the latest a booster seat for your oldest will give you enough width to sit all three accross the back in comfort.

 

[ED_SFO]

My guess is no roll down rear window after these pics...which makes sense. Less liability for it to turn into a guillotine. Still hoping for HVAC to the bed tho, not a deal breaker tho

 

[CyberGus]

My guess is no roll down rear window after these pics...which makes sense. Less liability for it to turn into a guillotine. Still hoping for HVAC to the bed tho, not a deal breaker tho

Regardless of the final disposition of the rear window, the vault cover still requires safety systems to prevent injury.

Sponsored