Search results

Actually not, I'm measuring along the length or "X" axis (if you will). It looks like that because CT has a weird tailgate that slopes backwards. The top of the tailgate is higher that the bed, plus lens distortions but still it should be a pretty accurate representation of bed size I think...

Wow... I'm afraid to even measure this one... :ROFLMAO:

You are correct, the vehicle shrinks left to right, that's why I left tire measurements to indicate that it's not changing by a considerable amount. My point is that I don't see how 6.5' is possible based on what I see... But I would love to be wrong. It appears to me that the cabin space didn't...

Ok so 234" vs. my 230" is 1.71% off makes the bed 6.61' still reasonably accurate

This is that you don't understand I'm not measuring in-plane there b pillar ends, it's much higher a point so I will look and measure off. I'm measuring overall length and width and bed length in the same plane of field. Soo look at this to understand

Jeez, come on... ok check this one then

Sure... overall length was ~230" as originally stated by Elon and reduced sense... The bed was not 100% square. Also added a lower 4' panel measurement for your reference...

Sure, but please explain where it's incorrect...

Well again, the bed can't shrink by itself because of wide-angle lens if other independent dimensions in the truck body measure correctly (like wheels for example)... why would the bed measure incorrectly? BTW, just to test my model I measured the original truck from the original presentation...

100% ... the midgate is way more important than 6.5' bed.

Could be... all speculations now... but one thing I know is that the bed won't be a 6.5' long :ROFLMAO:

I know, researchers have been testing solid-state batteries for years too, doesn't mean they will have it in production anytime soon

How can they cold weather test something if they didn't even had 4680 cell and still don't Not only that... how can they cold weather test something if they didn't even have 4680 cells and still don't...? Could be very early pre-pre-pre production models for exoskeleton testing...

Well I hope I'm wrong, but they were not only working on CT but also needed built TX factory, setup an assembly line there, develop new 4680 cells for CT, etc. Plus the pandemic and parts shortage happed. Seems like quite a lot in 3 years...

I actually lean towards no. 1 - Tesla is not trying to hide anything about CT by putting it on display at museums, in fact, they posted too much info even before finalizing the design, such as size differences, quad motor setup, rear ramps nowhere to be found, side storage is gone too... This is...

I understand what you are trying to say, but based on everything it's just not physically possible that the bed is 6.5' long, it can be 5' or 4.5' depending on where it ends, but no way it's 6.5' unless there are no rear seats... So like i said 6.5' with the "midgate" option...

I was just trying to help, if I saw that other dimensions are not working based on lens angle and distortion I will not be posting this... but all other measurements are working within 5-6% error.

Actually, you can, the ratio (WxL) in this case applies and the length looks very accurate, even 33" tires front and rear (which are in the same plane measurement with length) measures pretty accurately.

The camera distortion is fairly minimum here, take a look at the delta between the front and rear wheel it's around 6% reduction. So there is no in the world the bed can be 6.5' unless this video was taken in a different universe with different laws of physics...