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

[jerhenderson]

Bless those chickens

hey .... how many guinea fowl is that equivalent to ?

Sponsored

 

[jerhenderson]

Posts like this what greatness is made of!
Seriously, this guy could work for any intelligence agency or group.

he just scienced the sh** out of it.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm not sure why you say MY has far less nose or headroom. The MY nose might appear longer, but has less than the MY nose volume. Also the high center peak design is disorienting on just how much CT headroom there is.

yes this is a confusion between us

I meant there isn’t as much “headroom” in the Frunk, under the hood line, forward of the windshield

unlike the MY which has some decent height above the suspension well casting, the CT suspension well casting is nearly right at the hood line

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Chickens and colored line drawings aside, I am wondering why, if the bed can be 4’ across, the frunk cannot also be 4’ across. It is clear that it will be shallower unless it extends back toward and under the windshield, and maybe narrower there, but 4’ up front seems possible.

 

[cvalue13]

Chickens and colored line drawings aside, I am wondering why, if the bed can be 4’ across, the frunk cannot also be 4’ across. It is clear that it will be shallower unless it extends back toward and under the windshield, and maybe narrower there, but 4’ up front seems possible.

I take your point to mean the bed is at least 4’ between rear wheel wells, and it’s a great question

And the answer is: the blue Frunk areas I show totally COULD be as much as 4’ wide!

for scale, remembering the CT is 80” wide, that means my photos show the blue to be at least but more than half the width of the CT

i didn’t include measurements in my drawings for reasons prob apparent to you

what my photos were intended to show instead, is only how the Frunk can’t be 80” wide, nor 60” deep (the depth from nose to dash?), nor 72” tall ?

 

[RVAC]

but the CT isn’y designed like that vehivle

just look at the SS overlay photos

the CT nose does not extend materially past the casting

I would say it's actually designed quite similarly. Front casting, stamped steel frame, structural pack, rear casting. Only difference is the body panels being ultra hard stainless steel instead of mild steel.

They might not extend as far out as on the Model Y but I can't imagine they won't be there at all. Crush cans are necessary or even a low speed crash runs the risk of totaling the vehicle as the casting would be taking that impact directly.

You may have undersized the front quarter panel a bit:

 

[cvalue13]

You may have undersized the front quarter panel a bit:

I appreciate the inquiry and discussion

and I may or may not have undersized it

but look at your drawing, then see again the three photos I just responded to our discussion with

your drawing is far off

 

[Bill W.]

The frunk will most likely be smaller than we would like, but as long as the hood doesn't need special handling to close, I will consider this a win.

 

[cvalue13]

The frunk will most likely be smaller than we would like, but as long as the hood doesn't need special handling to close, I will consider this a win.

based on all this I think it could have as much total volume even if differently spaced than a Ford lightning Frunk.

just the same, I do not think it is likely to have materially more volume than a Ford lightning Frunk

The Ford lightning Frunk is huge

 

[JBee]

yes this is a confusion between us

I meant there isn’t as much “headroom” in the Frunk, under the hood line, forward of the windshield

unlike the MY which has some decent height above the suspension well casting, the CT suspension well casting is nearly right at the hood line

Right ok.

I'm still not convinced about the location of the firewall in your drawing, predominantly because the front door in the CT is abnormally long, and given the front seat position, which headrest is behind the center pillar, the distance from the hip on the seat to the flrewall is longer than even a tall person can touch with his feet.

We could also work back from the steering wheel, in that the seat, wheel and pedal position ergonomics are fairly similar to other vehicles in variable range, as to accommodate drivers of different sizes.

There is no shortage of rear leg room, if one considers the actual whole cabin length dimension. Simply the front of the door is further forward than another vehicle, meaning the firewall/footwell is further back, and closer to the front of the door.

I can see the coloured lines you made to locate each reference point, but I also notice they are not the same distance apart in each image. There's something not quite right there yet.

Also I don't believe Tesla won't use crush cans for low impact collisions, they are normally 4-7" long on most vehicles.

 

[cvalue13]

I can see the coloured lines you made to locate each reference point, but I also notice they are not the same distance apart in each image. There's something not quite right there yet.

The images are at differing distance from camera

the lines are on the same parts of the body, roughly

predominantly because the front door in the CT is abnormally long, and given the front seat position, which headrest is behind the center pillar,

yes, but seats … move. Steering wheels, too

perhaps fundamentally though, you need not concern yourself with any of that and only look at the interior photos and the position of the pedal relative to the triangle window above it

meanwhile, perhaps it’s worth noting that many of your comments appear to be based on an underlying assumption about the size of the seats relative to the size of the cabin. Perhaps your unstated assumption there is out of proportion?

here’s some glimpse at adjusting that mental model:

Note also that our friend with the air tank above is admittedly ~1’ closer to the camera and so appears a bit larger than in-world true compared to the CT, but he’s not … a giant

it almost seems like maybe you have latent bias regarding the interior dimensions based on time spent with the original prototype - but the size of this pre-production prototype’s seats suggest that either:

• they have oversized their seats to proportions out of line with ergonomics, ot

• the CT’s interior dimensions are a bit more snug than in your mental model

I’m 6’2” and 220lbs … I guarantee you my head reaches at least the top of this seat’s headrest, and that my knees and legs extend at least 2’ past the line of this steering wheel

That truck interior above, is not like this truck interior:

 

[Ratso]

 

[cvalue13]

the distance from the hip on the seat to the flrewall is longer than even a tall person can touch with his feet.

meant to add:

all this is also true in my F150

With the F150 front seats pushed all the way back to full rearward, my tiptoes (6’2”) can barely get to the foremost floorboard. But the pedals are a good 6-8” forward of that.

This passenger seat appears to be in the full rearward (which I assume they did to make the legroom appear as large as possible, and with the rear seat behind it flipped up)

meanwhile my wife (5’4”) drives with the seat in nearly full forward position to comfortably reach the steering wheel

 

[MonkeyDeLuffy]

That’s the HV connection from the main pack. Does it look like there’s room for a double-stack?

I bet the battery pack topper will line up with the top of main rails.

 

[HAL GALLUS]

mate, you’re getting a bit carried away there, aren’t you?

where’ll you be having the passenger legs go, mate?



that could totally be true

But perhaps I’ve made a mistake in including the cartoon person, as it seems to be causing more confusion that it was worth

The cartoon person is not being used to determine the location of anything

There are other reasons for having placed the firewall where I did. Several but not all are pointed out explicitly or implicitly in the slides above.

But a few other breadcrumbs not otherwise included in the slides above:

• on the CT’s potentially unusual firewall location / forward lean depicted in my slides:

first, study the slide titled CABIN BULKHEAD estimate” and note that top of the firewall appears almost certainly to at least begin forward of triangle side window aperture - this will turn out to be seemingly true based on the below…

next, study any side-on and overhead photo of the CT and note the relative location of a number of bits and bobs, in particular the leading edge of the dashboard, the forward door seam relative to the forward most bit of the side mirror, the fender flare’s the center of the wheel hub, and the ending of the windshield glass:

Then go study any available photo of the pre-production prototype interior to confirm relative position of those exterior points to the interior points:

Finally, account for the fact that between the firewall proper and the cab there will be an inch or two of trim, mounding, wiring, carpeting, etc.

After all that, go back to my slides:

And then finally go back toto my estimation of the firewall location (and lean):

In short, interior photos (and ergonomics) dictate that the driver footwell lays under most of (if not all of) the triangle window aperture.

the huge dash and windshield visually distorts the physical reality of the way they’ve compressed the nose dimensions of the CT.

My exact location of the firewall could totally be off, that’s why it’s an estimate - but it’s not so off as to wildly change the proportions of anything I’ve done - and it’s location in my slides has nothing to do with the cartoon person

But still thats a lot of work you've don. thank for the insight .

Sponsored