Cybertruck is MID"SIZE" pickup truck, prove me wrong....!!!

[Ogre]

I want to believe.

I just busted out this edit I did yesterday!

Sponsored

 

[Throwcomputer]

I don’t understand the “church of the 2019 reveal specs and Musk tweets”

it’s like a religion that’s canonized its bible and demands univocality in its passages

as a result, when presented with conflicting information in the world, they on brand first deny emphatically. Eventually data piles against them, so they begin negotiating with the text of the cannon to eek out any semblance of harmony between the conflicting information.

which, is a fine position for one to take for their own selves.

but, as is typical of such religions, anyone who doesn’t share their cannon, or their requirement for univocality, gets shouted down as a heretic.

things that earned such a shouting down on this forum not too long ago, regardless of reasonable visual or other evidence:

• Suggesting the bed was no longer 6.5’ long
• suggesting the interior no longer accommodated a full 6th seat
• suggesting the frunk didn’t encompass the entire area between bumper to dash
• suggesting there was no midgate
• suggesting the bed was no longer SS

And to the extent the visual evidence accumulated to the point of needing address, the negotiation with the cannon retreated to “this is just a prototype it could still change back/be an option” - as if anyone disagreed with that theoretical possibility.

Meanwhile, with a hypocrisy also typical of such groups, when on equally “speculative” information a change from cannon is perceived as a *good* thing, there’s no such reluctance to assume and propagate this new feature as “likely” or fact.

Someone uses a potato phone app to judge the bed is 6’ wide, with no accompanying thought support, and the congregation is in ecstasy, speaking in tongues

Someone instead uses no worse a method to suggest the bed is only 4’ wide, and the congregation starts building a pyre

Even more than shouting down, it’s the hypocrisy that’s the hallmark of the “church of the 2019 reveal specs and Musk tweets”

Such a joke

I would say you are preaching to the choir, but you just happen to be preaching the opposite of what the choir wants to hear!

 

[cvalue13]

I could care less if a vehicle is 5 inches longer or shorter. You really won’t notice a difference in most applications

Yes though I’d add a caveat:

if the wheelbase is longer… and often a longer vehicle entails a reciprocally longer wheelbase

generally, stability is increased by maneuverability is drastically reduced

when you combine increases in wheelbase with increases in length, then the effects are exacerbated because in maneuvering the parts “hanging out” past the wheelbase are sweeping an even greater arch

Go drive a longbed, double-cab Tacoma with a 140” wheelbase then a double-cab short bed F150 with a 145” wheelbase, and that 5” of length is material

and because the relevant bits of the external world remain constant (eg parking lot and parking space sizes, lane widths, etc.), at some point what are linear changes in local maneuverability become exponential changes in functionality. That is, while a shift from 140” wheelbase to 145” wheelbase may be only a step change in maneuverability that goes from easy to park to thoughtful to park, the next step change up to 150” wheelbase is can be the difference between thoughtful parking to ‘this parking lot isn’t for your kind.’

A few trucks back, I once had a 2008 F150 SuperCrew with a 6.5’ bed, and a 150” wheelbase at 236” long

That’s a noticeably different truck to maneuver than my Lightning at 145” wheelbase and 232” long.

For all the same reasons, I *hope* the CT doesn’t have its reveal night stated wheelbase if 150” - sure, the 4WS would do a lot remedy if not make better the maneuverability compared to my Lightning.

But a CT with 4WS and an equivalent 145” wheelbase would be significantly better than a Lightning. Even better, a CT with a eg 142” wheelbase and 4WS, which would put the CT in maybe short-bed Tacoma territory or better.

and better 4X4 performance (with the 4WS acting to make up for the reduced stability of the shortened wheelbase)

 

[TBONO]

Yes though I’d add a caveat:

if the wheelbase is longer… and often a longer vehicle entails a reciprocally longer wheelbase

generally, stability is increased by maneuverability is drastically reduced

when you combine increases in wheelbase with increases in length, then the effects are exacerbated because in maneuvering the parts “hanging out” past the wheelbase are sweeping an even greater arch

Go drive a longbed, double-cab Tacoma with a 140” wheelbase then a double-cab short bed F150 with a 145” wheelbase, and that 5” of length is material

and because the relevant bits of the external world remain constant (eg parking lot and parking space sizes, lane widths, etc.), at some point what are linear changes in local maneuverability become exponential changes in functionality. That is, while a shift from 140” wheelbase to 145” wheelbase may be only a step change in maneuverability that goes from easy to park to thoughtful to park, the next step change up to 150” wheelbase is can be the difference between thoughtful parking to ‘this parking lot isn’t for your kind.’

A few trucks back, I once had a 2008 F150 SuperCrew with a 6.5’ bed, and a 150” wheelbase at 236” long

That’s a noticeably different truck to maneuver than my Lightning at 145” wheelbase and 232” long.

For all the same reasons, I *hope* the CT doesn’t have its reveal night stated wheelbase if 150” - sure, the 4WS would do a lot remedy if not make better the maneuverability compared to my Lightning.

But a CT with 4WS and an equivalent 145” wheelbase would be significantly better than a Lightning. Even better, a CT with a eg 142” wheelbase and 4WS, which would put the CT in maybe short-bed Tacoma territory or better.

and better 4X4 performance (with the 4WS acting to make up for the reduced stability of the shortened wheelbase)

Makes sense

 

[charliemagpie]

Some of these legacy trucks look like Tarzan, play like Jane.

 

[Prime8]

Yes though I’d add a caveat:

if the wheelbase is longer… and often a longer vehicle entails a reciprocally longer wheelbase

generally, stability is increased by maneuverability is drastically reduced

when you combine increases in wheelbase with increases in length, then the effects are exacerbated because in maneuvering the parts “hanging out” past the wheelbase are sweeping an even greater arch

Go drive a longbed, double-cab Tacoma with a 140” wheelbase then a double-cab short bed F150 with a 145” wheelbase, and that 5” of length is material

and because the relevant bits of the external world remain constant (eg parking lot and parking space sizes, lane widths, etc.), at some point what are linear changes in local maneuverability become exponential changes in functionality. That is, while a shift from 140” wheelbase to 145” wheelbase may be only a step change in maneuverability that goes from easy to park to thoughtful to park, the next step change up to 150” wheelbase is can be the difference between thoughtful parking to ‘this parking lot isn’t for your kind.’

A few trucks back, I once had a 2008 F150 SuperCrew with a 6.5’ bed, and a 150” wheelbase at 236” long

That’s a noticeably different truck to maneuver than my Lightning at 145” wheelbase and 232” long.

For all the same reasons, I *hope* the CT doesn’t have its reveal night stated wheelbase if 150” - sure, the 4WS would do a lot remedy if not make better the maneuverability compared to my Lightning.

But a CT with 4WS and an equivalent 145” wheelbase would be significantly better than a Lightning. Even better, a CT with a eg 142” wheelbase and 4WS, which would put the CT in maybe short-bed Tacoma territory or better.

and better 4X4 performance (with the 4WS acting to make up for the reduced stability of the shortened wheelbase)

I've never driven a vehicle with rear wheel steering and it's one of the features I'm really excited about with the CT. Having the utility of a large truck with better mobility will be a huge advantage in my location.

 

[RVAC]

People tend to pull ssshtuff out of their nether regions and quote it as fact around here.

You asked where I got it from and I provided an explanation, wasn't stated as a fact. At this point saying it hasn't changed from 150" is equally speculative given we know dimensional changes have been made to other parts of the truck.

I understood what you meant

Basically, CT reveal wheelbase numbers of ~150” don’t square with appearance of pre production prototype being that materially longer than that of the F150 or Silverado.It’s a fair point.

And that beyond that, even subject to the clear and easily understandable caveats of my measurements and resulting described error band, the CT wheelbase would seem at most nearer to F150/Silverado, not longer.

These observations combined, seem as good or better a basis for conjecture than anything.

No less founded than the conjecture that “but in 2019 they said ~150”” (which sort of principle - of relying on the 2019 specs as the only knowable facts - I notice people are selective in applying when it suits them).

But fine, uncle: the pre-production has a wheelbase 5” longer than the competition just as “promised” at 2019 reveal.

In which case Tesla added 4WS to the CT not really to make it more maneuverable than the competition, but instead to make it competitive with the competition.

What’s strange, though, is the explicit admissions both the nose and bed are shorter, combined with plenty of visual evidence that the interior dimensions haven’t gotten larger, but the wheelbase - by gawd - couldn’t possibly have gotten any narrower.

Yes, exactly.

In short, if the reduction in wheelbase is less than the reduction in length then that could explain the lack of space for a spare between rear axle and tow hitch.

 

[Greshnab]

I am still pretty firmly in the believe that tesla will continue to include free roadside assistance and no spare tire.. it has worked for them for a long time.. and i suspect they will stick with the formula that has worked.

 

[RVAC]

I am still pretty firmly in the believe that tesla will continue to include free roadside assistance and no spare tire.. it has worked for them for a long time.. and i suspect they will stick with the formula that has worked.

For their cars it makes sense for a truck less so.

 

[Alpeyev]

From the recent alpha prototypes it is clear that Cyber truck downsized to Midsize category putting it in competition directly with the Rivian R1T.

Midsize comparison is by overall dimension and not by towing / payload number which I think might drop from original release.

I have attached pictures of the Truck in comparison.

Rivian vs F150 Lightning

Rivian vs Cybertruck

Cybertruck vs Tacoma

I have seen the Cybertruck in person. That thing is freaking huge and size-wise reminds me of my neighbor’s F250. Not even F150.

 

[Greshnab]

For their cars it makes sense for a truck less so.

I understand your opinion.. and the defense of that opinion seems to be.. every truck has always come with a spare...

It does not appear that Tesla respects the standard of that is how it has always been done.. and does not find that justification for doing something <and btw that standard is no longer true as the rivian doesn't have a spare standard it is an add on>

I attempted to find some numbers on what percentage of trucks ever use their spare but couldn't find it... we all know the AVERAGE truck doesn't go to work sites.. doesn't haul ... doesn't go off road. it simply drives around the urban jungle escort hooligans <aka kids> to sporting events and shopping. this is a relatively new thing in trucks... why would the AVERAGE truck need a spare tire.. and even if it had one, with free roadside service is the average soccer mom going to change out a spare instead of watching netflix till help shows up?

we each have our opinion.. and they are based on what we believe are sound reasons in a month or three we will KNOW if it comes with a spare!! now if you have some stats on spare usage in the us by car type.. that would be interesting to see!

 

[John K]

What are the definitions of a compact, midsize, and full size truck?

Seems the classification of a truck is the comparison to the class definition and not a comparison to other trucks.

Comparing to another truck becomes a feature comparison instead of a classification assessment.

 

[Greshnab]

What are the definitions of a compact, midsize, and full size truck?

Seems the classification of a truck is the comparison to the class definition and not a comparison to other trucks.

Comparing to another truck becomes a feature comparison instead of a classification assessment.

the only non touchy feely requirements i can find are for canada...

Class	GVWR in kg (pounds)	Curb weight in kg (pounds)	Frontal area in m² (square feet)
Light light-duty truck	2,722 (6,000) or under	2,722 (6,000) or under	Max 4.2 (45.2)
Light-duty truck	3,856 (8,500) or under	2,722 (6,000) or under	Max 4.2 (45.2)
Heavy light-duty truck	Over 2,722–3,856 (6,000–8,500)	2,722 (6,000) or under	Max 4.2 (45.2)
Heavy-duty vehicle	Over 3,856 (8,500)	Over 2,722 (6,000)	Over 4.2 (45.2)
Medium-duty passenger vehicle	Same as heavy-duty vehicle	Under 4,536 (10,000)	Same as heavy-duty vehicle

everything else is all judgemental like this...

• Compact/mini: Also known as Utes (utility vehicle) in some regions, these small trucks are more popular internationally than in the USA. They have a small bed and mild engine. Example: Chevrolet S10
• Mid-size: These are popular trucks with those who want towing and hauling functionality at their disposal, but also enjoy driving a truck as a passenger vehicle on a daily basis. Example: Chevrolet Colorado
• Full-size: These are the most widely-popular trucks in the USA and make up much of the segment’s sales year after year. Their payload capacity sets them apart. Example: Chevrolet Silverado 1500
• Heavy duty: These large pickup trucks often have V8 engines, tremendous strength, and sometimes even doubled rear tires. Example: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD, 3500 HD

with no facts.. just comparison based..

so... in answer to your question.. as near as I can tell in the US a truck is what the manufacturer lists it as.

 

[John K]

the only non touchy feely requirements i can find are for canada...

Class	GVWR in kg (pounds)	Curb weight in kg (pounds)	Frontal area in m² (square feet)
Light light-duty truck	2,722 (6,000) or under	2,722 (6,000) or under	Max 4.2 (45.2)
Light-duty truck	3,856 (8,500) or under	2,722 (6,000) or under	Max 4.2 (45.2)
Heavy light-duty truck	Over 2,722–3,856 (6,000–8,500)	2,722 (6,000) or under	Max 4.2 (45.2)
Heavy-duty vehicle	Over 3,856 (8,500)	Over 2,722 (6,000)	Over 4.2 (45.2)
Medium-duty passenger vehicle	Same as heavy-duty vehicle	Under 4,536 (10,000)	Same as heavy-duty vehicle

everything else is all judgemental like this...

• Compact/mini: Also known as Utes (utility vehicle) in some regions, these small trucks are more popular internationally than in the USA. They have a small bed and mild engine. Example: Chevrolet S10
• Mid-size: These are popular trucks with those who want towing and hauling functionality at their disposal, but also enjoy driving a truck as a passenger vehicle on a daily basis. Example: Chevrolet Colorado
• Full-size: These are the most widely-popular trucks in the USA and make up much of the segment’s sales year after year. Their payload capacity sets them apart. Example: Chevrolet Silverado 1500
• Heavy duty: These large pickup trucks often have V8 engines, tremendous strength, and sometimes even doubled rear tires. Example: Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD, 3500 HD

with no facts.. just comparison based..

so... in answer to your question.. as near as I can tell in the US a truck is what the manufacturer lists it as.

Based on the Canada chart, I remove the rear hatch on MY. Gross weight approximately 5200 lbs to 5500 lbs.

What classification truck did I convert the MY into?

While my question was a bit rhetorical, we need a definition to classify the truck.

Otherwise, I state the CT’s classification is MULLET. (Prove the classification wrong)

 

[Crimson_Fate]

For me Full size is a Tundra Crewcab, where the rear seats have more room then the front. But the tradeoff is a 5.5' bed

Without ever seeing the CT in person I really don't know how to estimate the size, it is deceptive to look atsince that reduced slope of the rear roof makes it look more car like but the length and width seem to be on par with the lightning.

We still need some official specs since some of this has likely changed but this is all I have found:

It does look like they reduced the origional 84" width of the CT down to 79.8" so they didn't need to put the amber marker lights on it (required at 80") Its likely to be about 231.7″ long with a 6.4' bed and sits about 75" high (at the peak of the roof) with a wheelbase between 145" & 149.9".

By comparison the lightning is also 79.9" W and 231.7″ long and 77.2" high and wheelbase of 145"

The CT looks like it will have a slightly larger bed but a slightly smaller frunk but overall aside from the varying height the dimentions are almost identical.

Sponsored