JBee
Well-known member
- First Name
- JB
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2019
- Threads
- 18
- Messages
- 4,774
- Reaction score
- 6,148
- Location
- Australia
- Vehicles
- Cybertruck
- Occupation
- . Professional Hobbyist
You and me both. Stupid flu.The recent thread with the aerial/overhead video of the CT at one point captures the CT at an overhead angle that was familiar. A year ago there was another aerial video of a CT at the Fremont factory.
Here they are juxtaposed, with the recent video CT on top and the year old video CT on bottom:
Now, first things first: none of this should be taken as intended as remotely definitive, as the camera plays tricks with the CT in the best of cases, and the two photos above also obviously have minor perspective differences. Accordingly, this is just fun conjecture with only an appearance of any analytical seriousness.
That said, comparing the two photos does seem to suggest some differences in proportions. And, while itās particularly perilous to try and compare proportions between the two photos (eg āwindshield in new CT appears longer than windshield in old CTā), thereās probably slightly better reason to compare relevant proportions within a photo to the same relevant proportions in the other photo (e.g. āthe ratio of windshield to hood in the first photo appears different from the ratio of windshield to hood in the second photoā).
Still, I thought it would be interesting to adjust the photos based on assumed shared lengths. In the next photo, I assume the two CTs have an ~same wheelbase, and adjust the photo size to standardize that measurement. In the photo after that, I instead size-correct the photos to assume the two CTs have ~same nose-to-tail length, and adjust the photos for that measurement.
We know nothing to suggest these two CTs arenāt identical in both wheelbase and length, and any resulting apparent differences in the photos might merely perspective oddities.
Still, some moderately interesting things appear when attempting to standardize either wheelbase or overall length.
In the above photo Iāve adjusted the phot sizes to assume ~same wheelbase, and a few things this comparison suggest appear to be consistent with an off-the-cuff glance at the originals.
For one, the apex of the cab of the old CT appears to be at a shallower angle and the peak further back towards the rear wheel. Recent proto videos do seem to have a slightly taller proportion of the cab.
For two, the length of older CT appears a bit longer, but in an interesting proportion: overall, the older CT appears shifted towards the rear - a little stubbier in the front, but towards the back a good bit longer. That backwards-shifting proportion of the older CT seems consistent with the similarly backwards-shifted apex of the cab. In all, if the two protos wheelbases are assumed ~same, the newer CT appears to have the center mass of the body shifted a bit forward, and to be nonetheless a bit shorter in apparent bed length. (Note for example the distance between the back side rear corner of the rear fender flare and the tailgateās bottom corner.
The wheelbase comparison is a bit muddied by the fact that either (1) the newer CT is on far larger wheels/tires, or (2) the tires are closer in size than they appear and the real distortion is that the old CT is considerably larger than the newer CT.
Finally, note that if the newer CT has in fact a narrower wheelbase than the older CT, it would mean that the older CT appears considerably longer than the newer CT. If so, in increasing the picture size of the new CT to match the wheelbase of the old CT, it would mean I have scaled up the size of the newer CT to appear longer than it is.
I will say that since the CT releaseās figures on wheelbase, it always seemed odd that it purported to have 5ā longer wheelbase but ~length as an F150 SuperCab:
CT:
Wheelbase 149.9 in Length 231.7 in
F150 SuperCab w/6.5ā box or SuperCrew w/5.5ā box:
Wheelbase 145 in Length 231.9 in
(FYI, original stats for CT width are also ~identical to an F150 SuperCrew - a regulatory-ducking hair below 80ā)
If Tesla has since slightly shortened the wheelbase of the CT, it would mean the above comparison by identical wheelbase has over-scales the newer CT proto. I canāt imagine Tesla to have lengthened the wheelbase.
So the above photo guesstimates differences in how the body relates to an assumed identical wheelbase, with the old CT appearing a bit pushed back and longer in total length. If instead the newer CT wheelbase is at all smaller than the older CT, the newer CTās proportions are incorrectly large/too long in my above comparison.
What if instead we assume the old and new CT protos are instead ~identical in total nose-to-tail length?
Interestingly, if we assume theyāre ~same length, a few things jump out:
ā¢ the cab apex appears ~identical in proportions (even if the newer one still appears a bit ātallerā)
ā¢ the already discussed shift in center mass of the body relative to the wheels here presents itself again, with the old CT having both the wheel sets pushed a bit forward towards the nose.
ā¢ interestingly, the bed of the older CT again appears a bit longer - this time seen by the forward-most corner of the vault cover.
HOWEVER, in scaling the front and rear corners of the two trucks to the same length, what jumps out is that the newer CT appears overall massive compared to the older CT. Not only does that seem an unlikely direction for Tesla to have taken, the newer CT in the video does not have the regulatory-required marker lights for vehicles wider than 80ā. Overall, scaling the newer CT to be the same apparent length of the older CT causes the photo comparison to seem out of proportion, to my eye, and with the consequence being the newer CT appears overall unreasonably larger - in height, width, etc. - than the older CT.
That might cause one to include that in fact the two arenāt the same length, and that the newer CT has been over-scaled in my conparison of nose-to-tail length. Resukting inference being that the newer CT is actually shorter than the older CT (perhaps with the same wheelbase).
If so, that would also mean the newer CT is shorter than an F150 SuperCrew (the original CT measurements).
The notion that the newer CT is shorter than the older CT would square with the notion that at best (A) the wheelbase is ~same, and the newer CT is a bit shorter as seen in the first wheelbase comparison photo, or (B) possible but unlikely, that the newer CT wheelbase is narrower than the older CT, and so that much shorter in length than the older CT than the wheelbase comparison photo suggested.
Either possibility (A) or (B) is consistent with the earlier observation about the difference in tires being run by the two truck while the newer CT may be on somewhat larger tires than the older CT, surely they arenāt THAT much bigger, and so the appearance of massively larger tires is instead attributable to the newer CT being a bit smaller in stature.
All that whimsical guessing and conjecture aside, the two photos juxtaposed do overall appear to suggest a few things:
ā¢ the wheel wells of the older CT appear wider in the mouth facing the tires; notice the apparently smaller angle of the top two flare corners in the newer CT compared to the older CT
ā¢ if the older CTāās flares are in fact at wider corner angles, that would mean the appearance of the longer length from the wheel well to the bottom corner of the tailgate is even greater than it appears in the photos
ā¢ in the older CT, the vault cover (if not the bed itself) does seem to be longer/more rectangular than that of the newer CT, which is that much closer to square-shaped; that said, the trim piece just forward of the cover is larger on the newer CT, perhaps meaning theyāve simply needed more space for the cover to retract into, leaving the cover itself more towards square shaped
ā¢ notice the strips of stainless steel around the side windows: either (i) the two photos are appropriately scaled and so these stainless strips around the windows are noticeably wider in the newer CT, or (2) the stainless strips are in fact ~same in width, but the appearance otherwise is caused by the photos being out of scale, with the older CT photo scaled downward too far.
Iāll wrap up by saying Iāve been sick in bed a few days, and the combo of time to kill and meds are spurring some lengthy, convoluted, CT sleuthing
What would be interesting to see is if I would get my CT CAD model, position it correctly and then superimpose each photo to compare. Another way to I could get accurate photo dimensions would be to collect all the photos from the same vehicle and do a orthomosiac from a point cloud. With that you could compare the two with accurate measurements and compensate for lens effects.
In comparison to my CAD my mind tells me the nose itself is shorter making the vehicle shorter, the roof apex is further forward, the wheelbase is the same, and they have flattened all the panel angles a bit to inflate the interior volume, including the bed. All whilst trying to keep the original look.
Sponsored