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

[Cyberostachu]

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 don't mind because a mid-sized will fit in my garage. What's important to me is it still look like a CT and I'll just use it like a car anyway - no towing planned.

Sponsored

 

[RVAC]

I wasn’t replying to you. Wasn’t even thinking about you at the time.

”The lack of a spare”

There is no indication the distance from the rear of the truck to the rear axel has changed much at all. You seem to be thinking there was a spare there before but somehow it’s been shrunk away, but I seriously doubt this is the case. It’s maybe 4” shorter and it’s pretty clear that at least a couple inches of that comes off the front.

I don’t think there was ever a spare underneath the truck.

I never suggested there ever was a spare. I'm saying theoretically there could have been space for one given the Legacy OEM's package one within a 232"L/145"WB footprint. However if the Cybertruck has in fact shrunk from 232" to 228" that could explain why.

 

[Crissa]

I never suggested there ever was a spare. I'm saying theoretically there could have been space for one given the Legacy OEM's package one within a 232"L/145"WB footprint. However if the Cybertruck has in fact shrunk from 232" to 228" that could explain why.

The Cybertruck OG had a longer wheelspan for its length, there wasn't room then, there wouldn't be now.

-Crissa

 

[RVAC]

The Cybertruck OG had a longer wheelspan for its length, there wasn't room then, there wouldn't be now.

-Crissa

We still don't even know the length of the OG, but that's not the point anyway.

The premise is that the wheelbase is not 150" any longer based on @cvalue13's measurements taken from the crash test video. His estimates suggest that the length is ~230" (+/- 1-2" margin of error) and the wheelbase is ~142" (+/- 1-2" margin of error). That is proportionally equal to the footprint within which the Legacy OEM's are able to package a spare. However if it turns out the decrease in length is greater than the decrease in wheelbase then that could explain why they haven't been able to package one, that is all I'm saying.

 

[Crissa]

We still don't even know the length of the OG, but that's not the point anyway.

The premise is that the wheelbase is not 150" any longer based on @cvalue13's measurements taken from the crash test video. His estimates suggest that the length is ~230" (+/- 1-2" margin of error) and the wheelbase is ~142" (+/- 1-2" margin of error). That is proportionally equal to the footprint within which the Legacy OEM's are able to package a spare. However if it turns out the decrease in length is greater than the decrease in wheelbase then that could explain why they haven't been able to package one, that is all I'm saying.

The OG was supposedly 231". I don't know if that's true or not, it's just the number I have memorized.

Legacy OEMs don't put their motor at the back axle, though.

-Crissa

 

[RVAC]

The OG was supposedly 231". I don't know if that's true or not, it's just the number I have memorized.

Legacy OEMs don't put their motor at the back axle, though.

-Crissa

Supposedly it was also 80" wide, but we know it was in fact 84".

They do, both the Lightning and Silverado EV have a motor on the rear axle.

 

[TBONO]

Supposedly it was also 80" wide, but we know it was in fact 84".

They do, both the Lightning and Silverado EV have a motor on the rear axle.

I’m sure it has been covered but can someone remind me how 84 inches width (without mirrors) is what appears to be the common estimate?

on one hand, it makes sense to support the 35 inch tires especially if EM wants this Baja capable.
However, it goes against the fact vehicle is believed to be smaller from the original reveal and no longer three seats upfront, some people saying mid sized,
Yet it is 4 inches wider than the initial spec…

I assume most people here have not driven a truck wider than 80 inches as they’re daily, as that much additional with is challenging in many instances, parking lots, narrow roads, trails, garage.
3 Amber Center running lights are also required ( if >80”) like the Raptor and TRX - I assume this will be done via the front light bar?

 

[cvalue13]

I’m sure it has been covered but can someone remind me how 84 inches width (without mirrors) is what appears to be the common estimate?

people are confusing two different things

at some point it was revealed by Musk that the on-stage prototype was 84” wide

the on-screen stats never said what the production width would be

after that, Musk publically waffled back and forth more than once about how much width-shrinking would need to be done relative to the on-stage prototype

Earlier thread I collected all the relevant tweets:

Explaining How CT Could Shrink To The Same Size

 

[RVAC]

I’m sure it has been covered but can someone remind me how 84 inches width (without mirrors) is what appears to be the common estimate?

on one hand, it makes sense to support the 35 inch tires especially if EM wants this Baja capable.
However, it goes against the fact vehicle is believed to be smaller from the original reveal and no longer three seats upfront, some people saying mid sized,
Yet it is 4 inches wider than the initial spec…

I assume most people here have not driven a truck wider than 80 inches as they’re daily, as that much additional with is challenging in many instances, parking lots, narrow roads, trails, garage.
3 Amber Center running lights are also required ( if >80”) like the Raptor and TRX - I assume this will be done via the front light bar?

"OG" refers to the concept truck unveiled back in 2019. In a tweet EM stated that it was 84" wide, indicating that it was over sized compared to the dimensions that were shown on screen. Current pre-production prototypes are believed to be 79.8" wide (i.e. 80" wide) which matches the on screen dimensions that were shown back then.

the on-screen stats never said what the production width would be

They actually had the width on there:

 

[cvalue13]

They actually had the width on there:

Dayum! Thanks!

 

[Kremmen]

What’s strange, though, is the explicit admissions both the nose and bed are shorter,

I recall MDR citing the Investor Day guy saying the bed was 6'. But what did I miss about the nose?

As far as I recall there's only been bloggers, YTers and verticals speculating about that, from various front 3/4 views snapped in the wild.

Was there actually a statement?

 

[cvalue13]

I recall MDR citing the Investor Day guy saying the bed was 6'. But what did I miss about the nose?

As far as I recall there's only been bloggers, YTers and verticals speculating about that, from various front 3/4 views snapped in the wild.

Was there actually a statement?

No, I just think there is generalized acknowledgement by folks here (not explicit statements from Tesla) that the pre-production prototypes appear less nose-heavy than the on-stage CT prototype.

Ultimately, none of which tells us whether the on-stage length dimension purported on screen did or did not contemplate already the apparent dimensions of the pre-production prototypes. OR that Tesla even knew at the time, but instead had target dimensions based on market realities (e.g., all we can say for now is, we don't expect to built a CT that is >80" wide, and will instead keep it competitor-matched to the traditional 79.X" wide).

The broader point being merely that, it seems to me, once a person generally accepts that the on-stage or on-screen prototype dimensions are different from the pre-production dimensions being observed or (to an extent) confirmed - it becomes strange to rely heavily on any on-stage expectations from 2019

afterall, it's not like changes in dimensions are being accomplished by a shrink ray, resulting in proportionate dimensional changes to the entire vehicle. Instead, cutting or adding here in X% may result in adding or cutting there in Y%, etc.

 

[Ogre]

I recall MDR citing the Investor Day guy saying the bed was 6'. But what did I miss about the nose?

As far as I recall there's only been bloggers, YTers and verticals speculating about that, from various front 3/4 views snapped in the wild.

Was there actually a statement?

Much of what MDR said turned out to be made up or his personal theories.

He got banned from Tesla events for something he said/ did in his glory seeking post event montage.

 

[Kremmen]

No, I just think there is generalized acknowledgement by folks here (not explicit statements from Tesla) that the pre-production prototypes appear less nose-heavy than the on-stage CT prototype.

Right. This is actually a bit of a bug-bear for me, because I don't think it happened at all. IME most of this speculation is advanced alongside the belief that the windscreen is steeper now and the *entire* forward end of the vehicle has been 'pug'-ified. That is, that virtually all of any length reduction has come from the 'high' point of the roofline forwards. (See: Electric Viking, and that derpy blog he was citing as evidence.) I don't agree with this!

afterall, it's not like changes in dimensions are being accomplished by a shrink ray, resulting in proportionate dimensional changes to the entire vehicle. Instead, cutting or adding here in X% may result in adding or cutting there in Y%, etc.

Yeah - this. I take your other points, but this is actually my own main argument. Reducing the height of the the sills of the side windows pushed the pointy "spear point" front window end further forwards relative to the wheel arch - you can see in recent cars that it ends about a third of the way aft of the front top corner of the front flare. In the OG it's more like half way back.

The side window front spearpoint is also the point at which the windscreen ends. The current cars have, therefore, a proportionately *longer* windscreen and reduced frunk lid length relative to the OG.

This is noticeable in front 3/4 views, like the snaps which provoked the most recent round of this speculation on the blogs etc. It's easily misinterpreted as a shorter nose, when in reality it's just a small change to the proportions of different elements of the nose.

I'll die on this hill.

Sponsored