So the Cybertruck fits in a garage (at under 19ft long)... But was the size reduction worth it for you?

[PilotPete]

Please tell me you realize that gas powered cars and trucks catch fire MORE often (per 1,000,000 vehicles) than do electric cars?

Sponsored

 

[PilotPete]

One of the benefits of the 3-5% size reduction is, the entire vehicle is lighter weight and has better aerodynamics (through less overall area) resulting in a longer range for the same battery capacity.

 

[firsttruck]

Please tell me you realize that gas powered cars and trucks catch fire MORE often (per 1,000,000 vehicles) than do electric cars?

Yup, ICE catch fire more often.

They also lie about hydrogen distribution/fueling network & vehicles being safer than BEVs.

Not just hydrogen fires but explosions.

----------------------------------------

Note: they are making hydrogen from fossil fuel (natural gas) instead of from renewables.

2023 Jul 18 - Explosions, fire at hydrogen fueling station destroy $1.1 million hydrogen fueled bus.
Kern County’s first hydrogen fueling station caught fire as explosions rocked Golden Empire Transit District’s new, $3 million-plus bus-filling facility.
The Bakersfield Californian
https://www.bakersfield.com/news/ex...cle_fbd75378-25dc-11ee-a7d4-0b118c015e11.html

----------------------------------------

2020 Apr 7 - Hydrogen plant explosion rattles several houses in Catawba County
An explosion was reported at the OneH2 plant on 23rd Street Northwest around 8:30 a.m. Multiple crews were called to the scene. Catawba County Emergency Management said people should avoid the area until further notice while crews handle the situation.
WCNC TV, Catawba County, North Carolina, USA


----------------------------------------

2020 Apr 25 - Compressed Hydrogen Fires : The Canyon Incident
LA County Firefighters fight a HazMat Fire involving compressed Hydrogen Gas in Diamond Bar, California.
Los Angeles County Fire Department


----------------------------------------

Note, reason why hydrogen stations should not be located near important locations: police station, schools, hospitals, housing, hotels, etc.

2019 June/July - Oslo, Norway - Explosion at hydrogen vehicle refueling station: mystery solved.
Valve leaked hydrogen which caught fire when it came into contact with the air.
International Association of Fire and Rescue Services

https://ctif.org/news/hydrogen-refuelling-plant-explodes-norway

----------------------------------------


Hydrogen blending with natural gas 'puts lives at risk': US doctors
Physicians' groups warn burn of H2 and natural gas blends in home heating raises chances of deadly explosions, as well as exacerbating asthma and dementia hazards
21 June 2022
By Rachel Parkes
https://www.rechargenews.com/energy...gas-puts-lives-at-risk-us-doctors/2-1-1244492

----------------------------------------

 

[cvalue13]

Please tell me you realize that gas powered cars and trucks catch fire MORE often (per 1,000,000 vehicles) than do electric cars?

but which fire smells tougher?

 

[mhaze]

This sacrifice circled in the image below. And dont try to say camera angle. because both are fairly equal. That stubbiness almost certainly adds to the drag on the vehicle. The geometry of the CT makes it very sensitive to proportionality. The old front end looked better. ...

Yes the old front end did look better, no question.

But it's a truck that qualifies for the US tax code section 179 business write-off
1) front body less than 30" to windshield
2) > 6000 lb
3) 6' bed

In comparison to a 1/2 ton mainstream truck, that makes the CT a ridiculously good deal. I can tolerate the chopped off front end (barely).

 

[smriddle]

Reducing it from a 6 seater to a 5 seater made it's utility for me drop below that of ICE trucks that have a jump seat... I hope they have a model with a jump seat in the nearish future. May have to hold out or wait for a competitor, huge compromise...

 

[cvalue13]

Yes the old front end did look better, no question.

But it's a truck that qualifies for the US tax code section 179 business write-off
1) front body less than 30" to windshield
2) > 6000 lb
3) 6' bed

In comparison to a 1/2 ton mainstream truck, that makes the CT a ridiculously good deal.

interested in whether I understand this (as far as a non-tax professional might), it doesn’t seem like that’s quite right

• Must be small business/self-employed
• Must be used>50% of time for documented business purposes to qualify for any deduction, and upwards of that floor up to 100% of the time for the full deduction
• vehicle must be used for business purposes at least 50% of the time over its “class life” (typically 5 years) - if usage falls below 50% in future years, some of the deduction might need to be recaptured.
• in the “heavy” category (>6K lbs), there a Section 179 tax deduction limit of the lower of $28,900 or the allowable bonus depreciation percentage of 80%.
• Luxury vehicles are capped at $20,200 of depreciation in the first year
• above $ caps don’tapply if it’s a vehicle modified for non-personal usage, including one of three categories of non-passenger vehicles:
  • Designed to seat more than nine persons behind the driver's seat;
  • Equipped with a cargo area (either open or enclosed by a cap) of at least 6 feet in interior length that is not readily accessible directly from the passenger compartment; or
  • Vehicles with an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver compartment and load-carrying device, no seating behind the driver, and no portion of the body extending more than 30 inches beyond the windshield.

the last category above, with the windshield qual, is essentially intended to capture cargo vans

But under the second bullet above, both the CT and any F150 with 6’+ bed seems they should equally qualify under - subject to all the other quals previous

An F150 SCREW wouldn’t, though

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

im afraid this functional argument doesn't work, because it's not really true, CT has just as much front end as say an an F150.

it's just that the CT's front end is 1/2 behind/under the windshield. the stubby "appearance" is only an artifact/illusion of the design

Here's a proportional comparison of a CT and a Raptor. The point here isn't measurements, it's merely proportions.

• the red lines are nose/tail tips
• the yellow line is front door jam/pillar
• the green line is rear door jam/pillar
• purple line rear of cab (you can't quite see CTs, but it's also right there)

are there design / appearance differences that give the two very different looks? absolutely

are there underlying proportional differences in "head" vs "thorax" vs "legs" - none to speak of

so if you don't like the stubby 'look' of the CT, you're kinda just saying you don't like the design/appearance.

i love it

I think your illustrations do well to break the illusion of the CT shape, and show it is very similar to an F150 in many ways. It does however also show that that the riding position is at least 4" more forward, and also that the cabin proportions are also likely similar to the Ford, at least in length, for both front and rear passengers.

In the broader discussion of how the CT achieves a 6'+ bed while being a bit shorter than the F-150, I think if we use your diagram as a guide and add in the recent photos of the frunk, I'd say say the answer is:

Shorter front end: 3-4"
"Cab-Forward" layout: ~4"
Unibody construction: 3-4"
Misleading slanted bed wall: 3-4".

Combined these design choices give you around 12-16" of play to shorten the truck while lengthening the bed. The slanted wall means it only has its maximum length advantage at the bottom. The unibody construction is a clear design advantage in space savings. The shorter nose and more forward diver position is a design choice which basically maintains cabin space and extends bed space while sacrificing frunk space.

 

[cvalue13]

It does however also show that that the riding position is at least 4" more forward

I don’t follow this - can you show/explain a bit more?

bearing in mind:

• the steering wheels and seats in each vehicle are adjustable in location
• The dummy’s used in the Ct are 5’9” tall
• maybe most crucially, in my post, I specifically noted that I scaled the CT to be the length of the F150, as I was interested only in showing relative proportions of the two vehicles

in all, that photo isn’t primed for discerning 4” variances

I used them instead because what they are able to show: the driver of the CT is not sitting on the equivalent of the rear half of the F150’s hood

people talk of the CT as though it has the seating position of a VW bus

PS:

(1) I don’t think people understand either the F150 nor the CT’s junction of cab and bed, to realize the CT’s exterior skin may be “unified” but there is still a multi-inch separation between the back wall of the CT cab and the front wall of the CT bed. Go look at the BIW photos of the CT, and you’ll see only the cab’s rear wall with pressure vents, forward of which there’ll be the front most wall of the tonneau channel, then the tonneau, then the bed’s bulkhead

(2) the slanting wall of the CT bed bulkhead is I agree a portion of the *mystery* 12”, in that the bed is only 6’ for about 4 munches above bed floor (at the level of the rear seat’s bottom), reducing down to 5.5’(at the level of the rear passenger’s shoulders)

this one above I’ve been hoping someone would key in on.

because all this talk of a 6’ bed is a lot bit marketing mirage

yea, there’s a 6’ bed floor. But you’re not fitting a 6’ credenza with the tailgate up, any more than in an F150 SCREW

 

[cvalue13]

The shorter nose and more forward diver position is a design choice which basically maintains cabin space and extends bed space while sacrificing frunk space.

here’s a different photo, this time attempted to be scaled (so still only good to a few inches)

but in particular note the line (yellow) of the CT’s dash board being ~identical to the dash line of the F150

this next one is only scaled to the extent of shared 35” tires being matched, but here again shows the ~identical dash lines and scope of the “nose”

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I don’t follow this - can you show/explain a bit more?

bearing in mind:

• the steering wheels and seats in each vehicle are adjustable in location
• The dummy’s used in the Ct are 5’9” tall
• maybe most crucially, in my post, I specifically noted that I scaled the CT to be the length of the F150, as I was interested only in showing relative proportions of the two vehicles

in all, that photo isn’t primed for discerning 4” variances

I used them instead because what they are able to show: the driver of the CT is not sitting on the equivalent of the rear half of the F150’s hood

people talk of the CT as though it has the seating position of a VW bus

PS:

(1) I don’t think people understand either the F150 nor the CT’s junction of cab and bed, to realize the CT’s exterior skin may be “unified” but there is still a multi-inch separation between the back wall of the CT cab and the front wall of the CT bed. Go look at the BIW photos of the CT, and you’ll see only the cab’s rear wall with pressure vents, forward of which there’ll be the front most wall of the tonneau channel, then the tonneau, then the bed’s bulkhead

(2) the slanting wall of the CT bed bulkhead is I agree a portion of the *mystery* 12”, in that the bed is only 6’ for about 4 munches above bed floor (at the level of the rear seat’s bottom), reducing down to 5.5’(at the level of the rear passenger’s shoulders)

this one above I’ve been hoping someone would key in on.

because all this talk of a 6’ bed is a lot bit marketing mirage

yea, there’s a 6’ bed floor. But you’re not fitting a 6’ credenza with the tailgate up, any more than in an F150 SCREW

Oh, I know what you're presenting here and I don't take any of this too seriously. But the discussion really is about packaging, and that's why this diagram is valuable. If you look at your lines, the side mirror is about 4" (pure estimate) forward in the CT. The steering wheel is too, and probably the seat. Sure the seat and wheel could be adjusted, but mirror can't, and if their ergonomic designers know what they're doing they've placed it in the ideal position for the typical driver, just as Ford does. That suggests to me that the seating position of the CT is notably more forward in the Tesla. Combined with the image of the frunk out line on the hood, and I think it's very likely Tesla has moved the cab seating forward at the expense of the truck but to the benefit of a smaller overall length and longer bed.

Also, with the bed I think the bed is a bit longer than 6', so while the slant is misleading for maximum length, the CT will probably be longer than short bed trucks.

 

[PilotPete]

(2) the slanting wall of the CT bed bulkhead is I agree a portion of the *mystery* 12”, in that the bed is only 6’ for about 4 munches above bed floor (at the level of the rear seat’s bottom), reducing down to 5.5’(at the level of the rear passenger’s shoulders)

this one above I’ve been hoping someone would key in on.

because all this talk of a 6’ bed is a lot bit marketing mirage

yea, there’s a 6’ bed floor. But you’re not fitting a 6’ credenza with the tailgate up, any more than in an F150 SCREW

Well, on the earnings call the bed was described as being greater than 6 feet. Where are you getting the intel that it’s only 6ft? Where are you getting the 6” reduction to the rear pax shoulders? Isn’t the tailgate slanted in the same direction? (If not the same slope)

If the bed is 6’6” and there is a 6“ loss on the angle of the back window/midgate, then a 6’ credenza will fit just fine. (As will a 6’ armoir, or a 6’ footlocker, or a 6’ unfolded ping-pong table, or a 6’ wiseguy with rigor mortis)

 

[Dusty]

here’s a different photo, this time attempted to be scaled (so still only good to a few inches)

but in particular note the line (yellow) of the CT’s dash board being ~identical to the dash line of the F150



this next one is only scaled to the extent of shared 35” tires being matched, but here again shows the ~identical dash lines and scope of the “nose”

So what are you saying with the overlays? Are you trying to say the CT will have similar frunk space to the F150L?

 

[cvalue13]

So what are you saying with the overlays? Are you trying to say the CT will have similar frunk space to the F150L?

No, not that the CT has similar Frunk space.

Just that the front end of the CT is not built like a VW bus

Has the same proportions as any other truck, but with a windshield that extends to the front of the wheel wells.

 

[cvalue13]

Well, on the earnings call the bed was described as being greater than 6 feet.

sure, give it 6’1”

notice it was no longer described as 6.5’

Where are you getting the intel that it’s only 6ft?

long obvious, confirmed by others, and findable on this forum

Where are you getting the 6” reduction to the rear pax shoulders?

see above

Isn’t the tailgate slanted in the same direction? (If not the same slope)

no.

regardless, a 6’ rectangle does not fit inside a 6’ rombus

If the bed is 6’6” and there is a 6“ loss on the angle of the back window/midgate, then a 6’ credenza will fit just fine.

yes, what with math and all

but it’s not 6.5’ is the thing

But a 6’ wise guy will still fit, diagonal-wise

Sponsored