Cybertruck Front Casting Analysis (and Frunk Implications) - 3 vs 2 Chickens

[cvalue13]

noting that the truck above does not yet appear to have all thermal equipment installed (notice also apparent attachment tabs), while the F150-wrapped unit appears to have filled in these gaps with more kit

Sponsored

 

[RVAC]

i think you mean why is there more guts in the CT between frunk and dash?

while not all that helpful of an addition here but: purely a packaging constraint + crash design outcome, combining among other things, eg.

• CT could have better/larger thermal systems (visible in CT frunk)
• CT is 5" shorter, but has 7" more bed, meaning excluding the bed the CT has a total of 12" less length in which to pack everything else
• CT still might be a bit narrower than F150 for all we know?
• CT's equivalent of it's 'rolling chassis' perhaps takes up more volume than the Lightning's
• then whatever the case, there's some amount of 'crumple' room still needed?

In all, CT may simply have as much or more 'stuff' with fewer/smaller places to put it - that space between frunk and dash is where about *everything* lives


check out the rolling chassis of the Lightning - obviously one would have to put the cab on there, but structurally the lack of both a motor or any front casting makes for a sort of free-for-all

what's really wild is that the Lighting frunk doesn't even use all the space available in the Lightning. Behind the Lightning's rear frunk wall is only a 12v batter and the steering linkage, but probably a waisted 4 square feet of space... i assume also a matter of available 'crumple' space for things to pack into before intruding into the cab?

Yes, why is packaging significantly worse when front end dimensions appear to be comparable to those of an F-150 (give or take a couple of inches).

Equipment being installed should be similar, I've previously stated the large air cylinder could have explained the lack of frunk depth but these newly leaked photos appear to confirm it will be located elsewhere.

CT is 5" shorter, but has 7" more bed, meaning excluding the bed the CT has a total of 12" less length in which to pack everything else

However your comparison images above indicate that there is no significant difference in front end dimensions so most of that would have to come from the rear 2/3's. I can't think of anything that would now have to be packaged in the front 1/3 that would have otherwise been packaged in the rear 2/3 had the truck not been shrunk.

CT's equivalent of it's 'rolling chassis' perhaps takes up more volume than the Lightning's

Possibly, good point. Just took the time to watch Munro's Lightning teardown again. Body on frame design vs. gigacasting may have allowed Ford more freedom to fit items around the shock towers.

It also seems like Ford was able to package most of the equipment between the drive unit and firewall. I was expecting Tesla to do the same but it appears they have put everything above the drive unit instead.

 

[cvalue13]

Yes, why is packaging significantly worse when front end dimensions appear to be comparable to those of an F-150 (give or take a couple of inches).

remember, somewhere in the CT they had to fit an outboard motor with a propeller

However your comparison images above indicate that there is no significant difference in front end dimensions so most of that would have to come from the rear 2/3's. I can't think of anything that would now have to be packaged in the front 1/3 that would have otherwise been packaged in the rear 2/3 had the truck not been shrunk.

yes, exactly why I find it an interesting question

At least three parts of answers are possible collectively or in part:

(1) the packaging "truth" about the rear 1/3rd: the CT only "sort of" has a 7" longer bed than a Lightning - insofar as the CT bed is only 7" longer at the bed floor, and then only for a height of about 4" above the bed - from that point upwards, the bed 'shrinks' back down to ~5.5' - e.g., a rear seat passenger's shoulders may be just as 'close' to the tailgate as in the F150 SCREW

(2) the packaging of the middle 1/3: it's simply possible the CT interior cab dimensions are more like an Avalanche than a modern F150 screw; that means ~5-7" less length measured only by legroom

(3) the packaging of all 3/3rds: it's also possible that we've not yet settled the other relevant dimension - width; if it turns out the CT is a few inches narrower than an F150...

again, I'm not taking a hard position on any of these, instead only offering them up as possible but non-exclusive explanations to both the "missing" 12" as well as the frunk packaging questions you're posing

 

[cvalue13]

That open floor confirms a structural battery pack similar to the 4680 Austin made Model Y.

Thought Munro/Cory discussion was interesting on this point. They of course agreed.

• 
  
• Then went on to say that the 10M cells celebrated in TX last month might be enough for ~7,000 CyberTrucks
• 
  
• Went on to say that while they know MY's with 4680 exist, they've never seen one at their factory tours, and are rare to find in the wild.
• 
  
• Munro capped discussion off with the fair point that a lot can change in a few months.

But I, personally, had never paid enough attention to understand the magnitude of cells folks like Munro think they'll need for a CT.

If the CT is ~1,500 cells, then an annual production of 250,000 CT units would equal 375,000,000 cells

 

[RVAC]

remember, somewhere in the CT they had to fit an outboard motor with a propeller

yes, exactly why I find it an interesting question

At least three parts of answers are possible collectively or in part:

(1) the packaging "truth" about the rear 1/3rd: the CT only "sort of" has a 7" longer bed than a Lightning - insofar as the CT bed is only 7" longer at the bed floor, and then only for a height of about 4" above the bed - from that point upwards, the bed 'shrinks' back down to ~5.5' - e.g., a rear seat passenger's shoulders may be just as 'close' to the tailgate as in the F150 SCREW

I think this one is all but guaranteed. That leaves ~5" unaccounted for.

(2) the packaging of the middle 1/3: it's simply possible the CT interior cab dimensions are more like an Avalanche than a modern F150 screw; that means ~5-7" less length measured only by legroom

This is where I think the ~5" mainly come from, the second row in particular. There seems to be a noticeable difference there when comparing it to an F-150.

(3) the packaging of all 3/3rds: it's also possible that we've not yet settled the other relevant dimension - width; if it turns out the CT is a few inches narrower than an F150...

At most I think we'll see 1" less given Model X is 78.7" wide. Doesn't strike me as significant enough to make a difference.

again, I'm not taking a hard position on any of these, instead only offering them up as possible but non-exclusive explanations to both the "missing" 12" as well as the frunk packaging questions you're posing

Your input is much appreciated. Given the cabin is where most of that reduction in length appears to come from I think the most logical explanation would be that the footwell and hence firewall intrudes deeper into the front end of the Cybertruck than on an F-150. Thereby not allowing Tesla to package that equipment between the drive unit and firewall like Ford was able to do with the Lighting. However when comparing firewall positioning it does not appear there is a significant difference. Which is all to say we'll just have to wait for Munro to tear one down.

 

[cvalue13]

Your input is much appreciated.

yours as well!

and agreed on all accounts above

and lest anyone be confused, I think what's described above is probably exactly the sort of product that can outsell many other traditional 1/2 ton trucks

there are a bunch of people with traditional 1/2 ton trucks that for the right value and feature proposition, will gladly down-size just a little in order to get significantly improved maneuverability, etc.

then there are a bunch of people in mid-sized trucks who would love to upgrade in space, capabilities - shy of a full-sized footprint.

then there are a bunch of people who have never bought a truck, for whom something just a little down-sized from an F150 will still be a huge upgrade in available space, functionality

maneuverability of a midsized truck, as much or nearly as much cargo room as a full-sized truck, with the space of a full-sized double-cab (as opposed to a super-crew), that is all electric, has great range, at a great price? it'll slay

 

[cvalue13]

No time for more today, but from Joe T’s video of earlier today:

The thing about the CT’s shape and proportions is how hard it can be to have a sense of scale.

A helpful touchstone of scale are the CT’s wheels, which we know to be 20”

And this photo is shot from far enough away that perspective depth plays little-to-no role between the wheel and the frunk

the green lines below are identical length

back of napkin, 12”-14” deep or so (but more concretely, *not* 20” deep)

For comparison, that’s roughly the same depth as the Model Y at the floor

 

[SparkChaser]

So it is a cup holder then....

Sponsored