Crash Test Video Measurements For Cybertruck Dimensions

[cvalue13]

That's interesting if that's the case. If so, where was volume added to the front row such that the space in the middle could no longer practically occupy the 6th seat?

The front door modules maybe? They do look a lot thicker.

I don’t know of any interior photos of these early beta prototypes to compare with the more recent prototypes interiors.

If the early betas did have the original seats/configuration, any number of required changes for production could have singularly or collectively led to a deletion of the jumpseat.

some thing the deletion would be due to the singular issue of airbag requirements conflicting with the mid-dash screen. others think Tesla could have engineered around that (and by extension, also been willing to pay for that engineering).

And/or could be a collection of interior dimension constraints, once side airbags, noise insulation, or other such “requirements” piled up to make things right.

some others think Tesla will offer the jumpseat as an option. Personally, I don’t think this is too very likely if only because Tesla would know this was a material deviation from the unveil stats, and so why purposefully socialize a 5 seat version with investors if you have on hand a 6 seat option.

I suppose it’s possible they did that to create chatter and discontent only in order to ‘surprise’ folks with the good news at unveil, but that would seem a poor marketing strategy choice. More likely marketing choice would run the opposite direction: if you’re gonna release only a 5-seater option, pull the bandaid off slowly by previewing it early and without comment so that expectations are lowered and less shine is taken off the big unveil.

But ultimately, who knows

Sponsored

 

[Albern]

I don’t know of any interior photos of these early beta prototypes to compare with the more recent prototypes interiors.

If the early betas did have the original seats/configuration, any number of required changes for production could have singularly or collectively led to a deletion of the jumpseat.

some thing the deletion would be due to the singular issue of airbag requirements conflicting with the mid-dash screen. others think Tesla could have engineered around that (and by extension, also been willing to pay for that engineering).

And/or could be a collection of interior dimension constraints, once side airbags, noise insulation, or other such “requirements” piled up to make things right.

some others think Tesla will offer the jumpseat as an option. Personally, I don’t think this is too very likely if only because Tesla would know this was a material deviation from the unveil stats, and so why purposefully socialize a 5 seat version with investors if you have on hand a 6 seat option.

I suppose it’s possible they did that to create chatter and discontent only in order to ‘surprise’ folks with the good news at unveil, but that would seem a poor marketing strategy choice. More likely marketing choice would run the opposite direction: if you’re gonna release only a 5-seater option, pull the bandaid off slowly by previewing it early and without comment so that expectations are lowered and less shine is taken off the big unveil.

But ultimately, who knows

I trust you've seen these before along with the 6-seater patent diagrams - but obviously not possible to glean measurement estimates from:

During this stage of development, I would imagine that most constraints related to safety (i.e. airbag deployment, spacing considerations, etc...) would have been either ironed out or at least identified prior to going so far as to build in the jump seat along with the driver's display into these running versions.

 

[cvalue13]

I trust you've seen these before along with the 6-seater patent diagrams - but obviously not possible to glean measurement estimates from:
During this stage of development, I would imagine that most constraints related to safety (i.e. airbag deployment, spacing considerations, etc...) would have been either ironed out or at least identified prior to going so far as to build in the jump seat along with the driver's display into these running versions.

I hadn’t seen them before, thanks.

But what I see there is not a jumpseat. First, that console is too narrow for any full sized truck jumpseat - they are standardly a width that can accommodate 3 cupholders across (those some provide only 2 alongside some tray/cubby that replaces a third cup).

Second, while there is a split that one might interpret as allowing the console to flip up and reveal a seat, neither the “top” nor the “bottom” of that console includes any plush seating materials matching the driver’s seat. The top appears to be leather-wrapped plastic trim, while the bottom is bare plastic trim.

Also, like the investor day beta prototype, the floor space in front of that console is obstructed by a storage feature - any 6th passenger attempting to sit there would think Tesla forgot about legs.

None of this to say my three observations above should flatly convince a more optimistic person, but instead only to say that personally that photo shows only that the CT beta had excluded a 6th/jumpseat some time ago.

Interesting photos, I appreciate it.

 

[Crissa]

That's interesting if that's the case. If so, where was volume added to the front row such that the space in the middle could no longer practically occupy the 6th seat?

The front door modules maybe? They do look a lot thicker.

We only have a rumor that was true from an unnamed employee with an unnamed position at Tesla. Who also said the bed was 4x6, which caused a huge stir that the bed shrank except if you rounded before you'd have still ended up at 4x6.

Not exactly confirmed.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

We only have a rumor that was true from an unnamed employee with an unnamed position at Tesla.

regarding the lack of 6th seat?

If so, there’s inordinately more evidence than a rumor.

 

[Kremmen]

With the CT girth "bulge" as highlighted in my last post, there is also another one in the front hood and windscreen, as well as the more obvious one in the front grill. It's actually quite curved and is why the roof apex line is also curved and not straight.

The top view - it's easily the most ortho we've had so far, yeah? - was fascinating. I have had disputes elsewhere about the curvature of the front and windscreen; some people seemingly are *unable* to see it. But then I don't think I'd ever tumbled to the side curvature. Equally, I'm not surprised to see it, in retrospect.

they have curved the line from the roof apex to tailgate as well. It might be exaggerated a bit from lensing, but compared to the straight bed wall internals it curved.

That bend in the roofline between sail and vault (edit: I meant roof and vault/sail - been a long day) is seen fairly clearly in various rear views. I'm not sure that was present on the OG?

 

[Kremmen]

PS I'm not owned! <corncob>

OK I'm done now, moving on.

 

[CyberGus]

If so, where was volume added to the front row such that the space in the middle could no longer practically occupy the 6th seat?

Maybe they needed to make room for the wiper

 

[Crissa]

regarding the lack of 6th seat?

If so, there’s inordinately more evidence than a rumor.

That we have a testing model without a center seat? Yes.

But it's still a rumor that it's removed from the production version.

-Crissa

 

[greggertruck]

It wasn’t intended to be “funny.”

You see, from your side of the keyboard, whether my post was “wrong” is indescribable - believe what you want, I could care less if you demonstrate another incorrect subjective view.

But from my side of the keyboard, there’s zero subjectivity in the thread showing that every one of your critiques of my methodology was not just incorrect (that alone is fine), but specifically uninformed, rudely put forth, pig-headedly adhered to even in the face of copious clarifications, and devoid of any attempted genuine dialogue.

I mean, you genuinely and pig-headedly argued that rulers don’t work.

Showing THAT level of what - to me - amounts to widely accepted trolling on this forum, was the point of the post.

In this forum, that sort of trolling, when in line with the only acceptable dogma, is around here treated as esprit de corps

I return in this thread the same kind of disingenuous, dogma-driven, treatment … and the horde cries foul, foul, foul.

There we agree, that is not funny.

Move on.

But why my tweet?

 

[TyPope]

I'm with you on the mirrors... I'd just rather have some good heated, powered mirrors. Later, once regulations change, we could aftermarket replace them... Actually, if you had a mirrored surface on the surface that is furthest away from the vehicle, you could fold in the mirrors on the highway which would then place the secondary mirror in such a place to be legal while getting the bulk of the mirror out of the aero.

 

[scottf200]

With the CT girth "bulge" as highlighted in my last post, there is also another one in the front hood and windscreen, as well as the more obvious one in the front grill. It's actually quite curved and is why the roof apex line is also curved and not straight.

Another thing I noticed in the CT overhead shot is that they have a slight twist in the body sidewalls as well, meaning the front wheel well covers are exposed and visible from the top, but the rear ones are not. This, is primarily because of aerodynamics I would assume, in that airflow that rolls off the front stays tucked in along the sides. This follows on to another change in the bed area and that is the rear sail wall thickness near the tailgate. I think that has lost an inch or two as well, and they have curved the line from the roof apex to tailgate as well. It might be exaggerated a bit from lensing, but compared to the straight bed wall internals it curved.

Related to the aero, I thought this video was quite interesting and likely has been discussed but seemed to go along with your comments.

The below is about how far the 'sails' are angled in (and I thought was a surprising nugget) but the whole video is good on the front and rear air pressures.

Title: How The Cybertruck Is More Aero Than It Looks
5:37 or 337 secs in.

Sponsored