4 wheel steering in action on Cybertruck at Giga Texas!

[JBee]

This is a different clip, same location.


Seems like a pretty significant turning radius improvement at slow speed. That’s a pretty tight donut for a big ass truck.

That video shows 4WS considerably better and shows the difference the rear steering angle will make. The front to rear wheel tracking will also be much better, which will help off road and will have significantly less tyre scrub which will be good for those big 315mm wide 35's.

 

[Throwcomputer]

This is a different clip, same location.


Seems like a pretty significant turning radius improvement at slow speed. That’s a pretty tight donut for a big ass truck.

Here I am worried about getting into and out of my narrow downward sloping driveway on a very narrow busy street where people park right up against my driveway entrance making it quite the task to get in and out with my Ridgeline without multi point turning.

The CT will get in and out easily first shot despite being wider and bigger!

Oh yeah!

AWS haters be damned..

 

[HansonCT]

Personally don’t care for this feature. Gimmicky and cost increasing

The steering wheel is my hang up. Seen they changed the software to allow both types some time back. Call me old fashioned, but I would really prefer the round steering wheel.

 

[JBee]

The steering wheel is my hang up. Seen they changed the software to allow both types some time back. Call me old fashioned, but I would really prefer the round steering wheel.

My biggest gripe and concern with the yoke is that when off roading it doesn't take a finger off or break my hand from the kickback of hitting a rock. Even in sand this can be a problem, and they really need a torque limiter on the human side to avoid it, which in turn might become a safety issue if the power steering fails.

A round steering wheel is the easy solution, at least as a option. Then give it a variable rate lock and I'm happy. I had a Landcruiser with that in 2001 already.

 

[Dusty]

There's a good possibility that the CT will be steer-by-wire according to Munroe. That would eliminate getting kickback/spoke-whipped/lickback all together.

 

[rr6013]

No drive-by-wire, no FSD

 

[Dusty]

No drive-by-wire, no FSD

Not that crazy of an idea.




https://electrek.co/2020/10/12/tesla-steer-by-wire-motor-geartrain-team-austin/

 

[Crissa]

The steering wheel is my hang up. Seen they changed the software to allow both types some time back. Call me old fashioned, but I would really prefer the round steering wheel.

Old fashioned.

Anyhow, you don't ever want your hands to cross in front of your face anymore, or hook your thumbs into the wheel. These lead to injuries when the active safety measures are employed.

-Crissa

 

[slomobile]

Absolutely. While more is better… just having a little bit shoulds. be a huge help.

More rear steering is not necessarily better beyond a point.
1 degree is useful and relatively simple. Safer. Within tolerance of some alignment specs. No seat of the pants difference, but measured improvement.
5 is noticeable and still drivable low speed if it has end stops and a tie rod fails. Fully mechanical is possible. Failure at speed might still be recoverable. Max angle (probably) for opposite angle only rear steering.
10 is impressive. Potentially dangerous, requires electronic monitoring and control, cannot just be mechanical any more. Linkage failure requires a tow, no limp home.
20 degrees is way into diminishing returns for on road use. May have interesting utility off road at low speed, but weakness could break all the things.
More rear steer angle doesn't make sense unless you are trying to match the front angle for perfect lateral movement. That has aerodynamic and rolling efficiency benefits for platooning. If all cars had this feature and were routed autonomously and cooperatively, cars could pack just a bit closer together. It slightly improves ability to line up at a tight tunnel entrance. Watch EM and Jay Leno enter a tunnel.
Extreme angles 50 up to 90 degrees are parking only gimmicks that break normal drivability and reliability.

 

[JBee]

More rear steering is not necessarily better beyond a point.
1 degree is useful and relatively simple. Safer. Within tolerance of some alignment specs. No seat of the pants difference, but measured improvement.
5 is noticeable and still drivable low speed if it has end stops and a tie rod fails. Fully mechanical is possible. Failure at speed might still be recoverable. Max angle (probably) for opposite angle only rear steering.
10 is impressive. Potentially dangerous, requires electronic monitoring and control, cannot just be mechanical any more. Linkage failure requires a tow, no limp home.
20 degrees is way into diminishing returns for on road use. May have interesting utility off road at low speed, but weakness could break all the things.
More rear steer angle doesn't make sense unless you are trying to match the front angle for perfect lateral movement. That has aerodynamic and rolling efficiency benefits for platooning. If all cars had this feature and were routed autonomously and cooperatively, cars could pack just a bit closer together. It slightly improves ability to line up at a tight tunnel entrance. Watch EM and Jay Leno enter a tunnel.
Extreme angles 50 up to 90 degrees are parking only gimmicks that break normal drivability and reliability.

The other thing is that from a production perspective, more steering angle makes the steering knuckle more complicated, and it requires a larger wheelarch space to clear a turning 35" that could be bouncing over bumps, especially on the rear of the CT wear space is already at a premium under the bed and in between the skinny sail sidewalls..

 

[Ogre]

More rear steering is not necessarily better beyond a point.
1 degree is useful and relatively simple. Safer. Within tolerance of some alignment specs. No seat of the pants difference, but measured improvement.
5 is noticeable and still drivable low speed if it has end stops and a tie rod fails. Fully mechanical is possible. Failure at speed might still be recoverable. Max angle (probably) for opposite angle only rear steering.
10 is impressive. Potentially dangerous, requires electronic monitoring and control, cannot just be mechanical any more. Linkage failure requires a tow, no limp home.
20 degrees is way into diminishing returns for on road use. May have interesting utility off road at low speed, but weakness could break all the things.
More rear steer angle doesn't make sense unless you are trying to match the front angle for perfect lateral movement. That has aerodynamic and rolling efficiency benefits for platooning. If all cars had this feature and were routed autonomously and cooperatively, cars could pack just a bit closer together. It slightly improves ability to line up at a tight tunnel entrance. Watch EM and Jay Leno enter a tunnel.
Extreme angles 50 up to 90 degrees are parking only gimmicks that break normal drivability and reliability.

Looking at the video looked like perhaps 10%. I would think 20% would be more pronounced. Whatever they put in there has some pretty impressive turning gains.

Curiously, I think GM went big with the Hummer and went with even more so they could pull off their crab walk.

I drove a 2002 Tundra for quite a bit (sold it before we were sure the Cybertruck was delayed because I thought I would have a replacement). Turning wasn’t great but it was also tolerable. I think it had a shorter wheel base than the Cybertruck. If the Cybertruck can beat the Tundra’s turn radius—and based on the above videos I think it can—I’ll be super happy.

 

[Bill906]

Extreme angles 50 up to 90 degrees are parking only gimmicks that break normal drivability and reliability.

I want 90° front and back, be damned the drawbacks. I want to parallel park remaining parallel the entire time.