CT Rear End Deep Dive (har har)

[JBee]

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 it’s particularly perilous to try and compare proportions between the two photos (eg “windshield in new CT appears longer than windshield in old CT”), there’s probably slightly better reason to compare relevant proportions within a photo to the same relevant proportions in the other photo (e.g. “the ratio of windshield to hood in the first photo appears different from the ratio of windshield to hood in the second photo”).

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 aren’t 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 I’ve 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 tailgate’s 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 release’s figures on wheelbase, it always seemed odd that it purported to have 5” longer wheelbase but ~length as an F150 SuperCab:

CT:

Wheelbase	149.9 in
Length	231.7 in

F150 SuperCab w/6.5’ box or SuperCrew w/5.5’ 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 80”)

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 can’t 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 CT’s 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 they’re ~same length, a few things jump out:

• the cab apex appears ~identical in proportions (even if the newer one still appears a bit ‘taller’)

• 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.

• 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 80”. 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 aren’t 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 aren’t 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:

• 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

• if the older CT’’s 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

• 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 they’ve simply needed more space for the cover to retract into, leaving the cover itself more towards square shaped

• 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.

I’ll wrap up by saying I’ve been sick in bed a few days, and the combo of time to kill and meds are spurring some lengthy, convoluted, CT sleuthing

You and me both. Stupid flu.

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

 

[Crissa]

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 it’s particularly perilous to try and compare proportions between the two photos (eg “windshield in new CT appears longer than windshield in old CT”), there’s probably slightly better reason to compare relevant proportions within a photo to the same relevant proportions in the other photo (e.g. “the ratio of windshield to hood in the first photo appears different from the ratio of windshield to hood in the second photo”).

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 aren’t 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 I’ve 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 tailgate’s 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 release’s figures on wheelbase, it always seemed odd that it purported to have 5” longer wheelbase but ~length as an F150 SuperCab:

CT:

Wheelbase	149.9 in
Length	231.7 in

F150 SuperCab w/6.5’ box or SuperCrew w/5.5’ 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 80”)

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 can’t 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 CT’s 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 they’re ~same length, a few things jump out:

• the cab apex appears ~identical in proportions (even if the newer one still appears a bit ‘taller’)

• 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.

• 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 80”. 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 aren’t 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 aren’t 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:

• 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

• if the older CT’’s 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

• 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 they’ve simply needed more space for the cover to retract into, leaving the cover itself more towards square shaped

• 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.

I’ll wrap up by saying I’ve been sick in bed a few days, and the combo of time to kill and meds are spurring some lengthy, convoluted, CT sleuthing

This only applies if you also assume the same lens took the both photos.

Once you start taking photos from a distance, small changes in the focal length will distort objects. Compare the width of the truck in the two pictures and see how much that changed as well from the angle.

Aside the wheels and mirrors, it's probably the same truck.

-Crissa

 

[RVAC]

The photo taken from the 2/22 video is very distorted, as good as useless, impossible to make any comparison.

The Alpha and Beta prototypes look very similar in overall dimensions to my eye, however I get the impression the Beta could be slightly narrower. I think the Alpha is 82" wide whilst the Beta could be 80" as was initially planned, Elon later said 82" but they could have changed back to 80" again as it was three years ago when he said that.

 

[cvalue13]

Aside the wheels and mirrors, it's probably the same truck.

that’s likely and would make for an awful embarrassment and waste of time! Maybe my bold disclaimer shoulda also been italicized and underlined
Both lack door handles and have the big wiper.

If I trust my eyes even a little, then differences that are not seemingly a matter of distortion are - aside from the wheels and mirrors - also:

• the trim piece forward of the vault cover is much larger in the recent vid, potentially with that entire rear glass roof portion being different in design/interior proportions

• the Fremont vehicle was seen with amber over-width marker lights up front, etc., though the recent video truck clearly had lighting issues going on (or a dropping of market lights an immaterial change)

• also seems to me the recent video CT has the slimmer, less aggressive, fender flares like the ones seen in the recent Palo Alto

 

[KadeWest]

Started studying the video from a few weeks ago out of Palo Alto, and was particularly interested in the rear end:

Several observations:

• the photo above’s angle emphasizes that the rear “window” is really more of a rear peephole; expected this when the years old ride-along video showed, below, a video-only rear view mirror

The more recent beta photo from the front, given some “computer enhance” adjustments for visibility, highlights the tech cluster up there behind the video rear view “mirror”:

• is that vault cover partially deployed, or is that as tucked in as it gets? Wonder how much that hangs past the rear window. Nice for shade, not nice for fitting furniture in the bed. Based on photos of earlier prototype beds, I’ve long thought that the reveal day tout of a 6’ bed is a bit slippery. The floor of the bed may be 6’, but the angle of the bulkhead appears to reduce the aperture by several inches. And if this vault cover adds a few more, it could end up a sub-5’6” bed aperture.

• Given the clean lines of the tailgate area, I can only assume this is the rear-facing rear view camera (given its height):

At another angle in the video, we can see this camera (?) housing has a theme-consistent wedge design:

• the next thing I noticed, is the body’s overall lack of “V” shape compared to past prototypes. Here they are alongside each other:

• above photo of an earlier prototype also provides a stark contrast to the newer prototype’s far less busy rear break/running light approach (contrast the below photo with break lights engaged vs the further first photo of the post with only taillights:

• the last two photos also emphasize the newer prototype’s larger black bar/trim running the top of the tailgate. (I suppose it’s possible - but unlikely - that this black bar conceales a full length running/taillight like seen in earlier protos, but which in the new proto is blacked out in daylight and only illuminates at night?)

• next, this rear photo - subjected to some more “computer enhance” for visibility, highlights some details about the new rear bumper (and aerodynamics?) kit below the tailgate:

If a person looks close enough and squints, they still might not make out any hitch point cover of some sort, obscuring an otherwise unobvious location that should be directly below the license plate/step cutout.

• another angle gives some additional detail on the rear bumper license plate/step area, including probably reverse lights (in red) and a cheeky little marker light/sensor/camera housing (in blue) at the corners giving both side and rear coverage (seen also in earlier prototypes):

• another noticeable design alteration highlighted by the rear view regards the reduced width and aggressiveness of the fender flares, note new vs old:

• also noticeable is a design change in the upper corners of the tailgate design. In the new prototype, the running/break light housing appears to a part of the rear quarter panel/sail, more like a traditional truck design, contrasted with earlier prototypes that appear to have housed the tailight in the tailgate itself:

VS

from a safety perspective, this movement of the tailight housing is probably driven by thefact that taillights should/must still be visible when the tailgate is down.

This design change would introduce a gap in any rear tailight bar, which gap prior designs avoided by having the entire length of the tailgate contiguous. The new configuration wouldn’t allow for a tailight design such as seen in earlier prototypes:

Curiously, the new prototype’s change would seem to make for an oddly shaped tailgate, with double the number of corners when down:

• visible at various glints are two anomalies on the top sides of each of sails:

unclear if these are merely access points for trim/panel fastening, or instead covers over some sort of attachment point for accessories, like racks, or tie-downs. Looking back over earlier prototype vids, there are parallel anomalies in these spots:

All-in-all, the sum of these changes makes the truck considerably less mad-max looking compared to the earlier prototypes - in a way I find more appealing. Similarly, the lighting design changes I find more revisionist 1980s future (ala Bladerunner) than the earlier prototypes - again a positive for me. The old light bar looks now seem dated.

Still, the newer prototype looks considerably smaller. I remember Musk referencing a necessary downsizing, though everyone seems to continue to site the dimensions from the reveal. If the envelope is in fact smaller, something I can’t put my finger on tells me the design of this truck could mean that reductions to the envelope can make for disproportionate reductions to the interior volume. Something about the angularity and roofline just suggests a possibly awkward space-human form interaction.

Not to say that will be the ultimate fact of it, but instead that it seems a challenge to be overcome.

No surprises the production version is somewhat neutered in its extremes, like: the V-shaped angle of the rear elevation now made more perpendicular to the ground, the unusual tailight housing embedded in the tailgate now moved to the quarter panel, the less aggressive wheel well flares. or the formerly minimalist bumper now having far more mass and familiar molded-plastic like form factor. As for the bumper, I assume this is largely driven by aerodynamics (but perhaps also covering a deeper storage well in the bed, for spares, etc?)

Surely many of these things pointed out may be old news to some of you, and the corrections/additions come flying in - here for it!

Has anybody else noticed the curve of the roof? I’ve never heard anyone mention it, but I believe it’s for aerodynamics, and I believe it’s illegal to have flat glass, so they needed it to have a slight curve ….?

 

[KadeWest]

They didn't rethink the design because it would look better per se, it was a cost cutting measure so that it would save them money by not having to add that secondary set of lights when the tailgate is down.

There's a fine line between retro futuristic design and actually looking like something that was made in the 1980's. The new light bar is decidedly the latter imo, just like the photos you posted the Blade Runner sedan was made in the 1980's and it shows. What I think the original Cybertruck did so well was take that aesthetic but making it contemporary as opposed to cosplaying as a 1980's movie prop.

I read that Elon DID confirm that the light bar WILL in fact be part of its final design. I was determined to like it either way.

 

[Crissa]

Has anybody else noticed the curve of the roof? I’ve never heard anyone mention it, but I believe it’s for aerodynamics, and I believe it’s illegal to have flat glass, so they needed it to have a slight curve ….?

Cameras induce curves in objects because lenses are curved.

-Crissa

 

[Sirfun]

Cameras induce curves in objects because lenses are curved.

-Crissa

Yes cameras do induce curves, but also the Cybertruck I saw, did not have flat glass. There were subtle curves that most people assumed were flat.

 

[KadeWest]

Cameras induce curves in objects because lenses are curved.

-Crissa

That’s not what I’m seeing tho. The curve is on all the latest builds. Very slight

 

[Crissa]

That’s not what I’m seeing tho. The curve is on all the latest builds. Very slight

There's a slight curve across from side to side in the windshield, but I don't see any in the side panels.

-Crissa

Sponsored