Explaining How CT Could Shrink To The Same Size

[cvalue13]

This purported news of the CT “shrinking” 5%, yet resulting in the CT staying the “same” size, has some people confused across various threads - thought it worth explaining (if only to myself - and for correction) this un-magic trick (I.e.., misunderstanding)

HERE IS HOW THE CT PURPORTEDLY “SHRANK” 5% YET RETAINS THE ON-SCREEN MEASUREMENTS FROM UNVEIL IN 2019:

​

(1) the physical CT prototype on stage in 2019 unveil was bigger (by about 5%) than the on-screen spec measurements at unveil​

​

​

(2) consistent with this, later Elon said (on a Jay Leno episode that aired on May 22, 2020) that the prototype Elon and Jay were riding in would need to be about 5% smaller in production (note: 5% would be bigger than the 2” reduction to the 82” mentioned in his Feb 2020 tweet above)​

(3) the day after the Leno episode aired, Elon tweeted basically “scratch that,” even a 3% reduction would be “too small”​

​

(4) so, the notion that the CT “shrunk 5%” relates not to the on-screen specs from unveil, but instead to the size of the on-stage prototype​

Since and because of those 2020 tweets, that larger prototype has been the expected CT size (i.e., about 5% larger than the on screen specs from unveil).

IN OTHER WORDS: a purported 5% shrink from the unveil prototype would result in a production unit that matches the unveil on-screen specs

Which altogether is also reason the purported 5% shrink seems plausible:

• it’s consistent with the unveil intended specs in 2019
• a year later Elon saying he was making the CT smaller than the prototype (82”), then a few months later smaller still (5% from prototype), then a few months later bigger (back up 5% to prototype) means it’s not too strange for him to still later reconsider again to make it smaller (back down 5%) -
• presumably the 2019 intended specs were based on a rationale that ultimately continued to be compelling.

That rationale was in fact the opening paragraph of the unveil presentation:

“So we’ll start off with the size, the dimensions. And the inspiration. So the functionality I’m going to describe is within a space that is less than the most popular pickup truck in the United States, the F150. So we didn’t cheat in either width, height, or length, and we’re able to achieve much greater capability in the same dimensions, same weight. Yeah. Part of this is the fundamental design change, we moved the mass to the outside. We created an exoskeleton.”​

To not shrink the CT 5% would mean it would be materially larger than a standard F150 SuperCrew. (Eg 5% is a surprisingly significant shift in dimensions.)

In the same vein, on the Leno episode he mentioned the 5% shrink would be necessary for the CT to “fit in people’s garage.” Not to mention to achieve the overall headline goal of the design: more capability in the same envelope.

EDIT TO ADD: the above explanation does not explain the recent video that appears to simultaneously claim a 5% reduction in size AND a continued width of 84”

Sponsored

 

[AxelR]

My Raptor fits in my garage
And the cab is the perfect size (limo spacious).
i hope the CT rear legroom is similar.

 

[hridge2020]

I'm sure theres consideration for leg room.

 

[Roy2001]

Keep the 232" length and 80" width as F150, move the cab forward, keep the legroom, and make the bed 6 feet. Problem solved.

 

[Roy2001]

I'm sure theres consideration for leg room.

From video, 2nd row legroom is not good.

 

[Miralf]

Yes i agree, the walk around video from investor day show a midsize truck legroom, smaller than a Rivian it seems

 

[cvalue13]

My Raptor fits in my garage

I loved (and miss) my Raptor, but it didn’t fit in my garage or a lot of others.

But with my Lightning and participation on that forum I’ve learned a few more things:

These BEV trucks are either (1) attracting first-time truck buyers, who don’t appreciate the size until too late, or (2) dissuading those first-time truck buyers, once the realize the size

And, with Tesla generally being a darling of urban centers, even the regularly F150 footprint is a serious hindrance - say nothing of the Raptor

And the cab is the perfect size (limo spacious).
i hope the CT rear legroom is similar.

This actually touches on my core lingering concern (not conclusion) about this purported 5% shrinkage. It’s a concern that started with photos of the new prototype interior, which to my eye (expressing reasoned opinion alert) is decidedly smaller than an F150. It may not be as small inside as a Tacoma, but if forced I’d bet it all on being materially smaller than an F150 SuperCrew.

And there’s a reading of the above facts that is consistent with this lingering concern (not conclusion). Read Elon’s tweets again:





Even 3% (much less 5%) is “too small.” What does he mean by too small?

One thing is (to me) near certain: by “too small,” he could not have been referencing exterior dimensions. A CT with exterior dimensions almost identical to an F150 SuperCrew surely isn’t “too small” in exterior dimensions. In fact, that size was 1/2 of the central design philosophy opening paragraph of unveil.

And the converse is also true: a CT with exterior dimensions as large or larger than a Raptor certainly wouldn’t be “just right” in exterior dimensions. And it would contradict the stated design philosophy of the CT.

So if he doesn’t mean “too small” in exterior dimensions, to me there are two remaining possibilities (would love to hear more):

(1) he’s making some statement of aesthetic attractiveness, as in “the PT Cruiser was too small” - this is plausible at first blush, but to me doubtful. Would this sort of concern not be fixable by easier means than violating the stated design philosophy of the CT sharing the envelope of the F150?

Remember this bit of Elon’s unveil quote from above: “So we didn’t cheat in either width, height, or length…”

I just don’t think the aesthetic observation wouldn’t be addressed through other design accommodations, least of all at the cost of going from F150 to Raptor footprint. That is no small market impact. And would it be a bit of that “cheat” Elon referenced?

So, when “even 3%” much less 5% Elon says is “too small,” it makes me think the issue is beyond aesthetic. Something functionally critical.

(2) interior/cargo dimensions are the other obvious culprit of a 5% exterior reduction causing the CT to be “too small”

reductions in the exterior envelope of a vehicle can have disproportionate effects on the interior ergonomics of the vehicle.

Consider the exteriors of the Toyota Tundra, 79.8” wide, and Tacoma, 75.2” wide. But inside, the Tundra front shoulder room is 7” wider than a Tacoma - which is the standard difference between a squarely full-sized and mid-sized interior.

Then of course there are the potential outsized effects to cargo room of reducing the width of a vehicle by 4”. Not only do the dimensions of the envelope get smaller, but other bits of equipment / features meanwhile may stay the same size (eg the armrests on the doors, the cupholders, will, and the wheelwells or suspension equipment may, stay the same size, but now are that much larger proportionate to the vehicle).

If in the CTs case it were true that a 5% reduction in exterior envelope had disproportionate impacts on the interior/cargo space of the CT, that is an effect I could see Elon consternations over.

Let’s go back to the rest of that above quote from unveil: “So we didn’t cheat in either width, height, or length, and we’re able to achieve much greater capability in the same dimensions”

If in accomplishing the the exterior envelope goal, there were disproportionate impacts on interior/cargo goals, it pits against themselves the two halves of the design goals: do we hold to the design goal of matching the F150 envelope, or instead the goal of [matching the F150 interior dimensions and exceeding the cargo dimensions].

This would seem to be the sort of thing that over the last several years causes Elon to in effect go:

​

• despite unveil dimensions, it’s going to be ~2.5% wider (eg 82” wide) [Feb 2020 tweet]​

• actually, it’s got to be ~2.5% smaller or it’ll be too big [Jay Leno convo]]​

• actually, it’s got to be a full 5% bigger, even only 3% bigger is too small [May 2020 tweet]​

​

​

In all, the above is just laying out in detail only some of the sort of data altogether that causes my concern (not conclusion) that my eyes are not deceiving me when I see the photos/video of the investor day pre-production unit. Elon’s consternation over the on-screen unveil specs being “too small,” is too consistent with photos of that investor day’s small back seat, lack of 6th seat, mid-sized truck console, etc., for me not to have some concern (not conclusion).

And, we’re close enough now to purported production that there’s not a lot of time left to see another chapter in Elon’s size tweets. Purely from the armchair (not expertise) would it seem surprising that this near production should you decide to scale back up 5% to Raptor sizes.

Of course, it should go without saying (but apparently can’t) that this concern (not conclusion) of mine is proportional to the obvious contingent nature of the data being considered. We don’t know if this purported 5% shrink is concretely true of even the investor day prototype, much less the ultimate production vehicle.

But for me, unlike 4WS or BAW or any number of other “features” of the CT, it could be a deal killer for me if the CT turns out to fall materially short of an F150 in interior space. Even bed/Frunk cargo space I’ll sacrifice to have F150-comparable interior space, particularly shoulder room, particularly in the rear.

But I’m probably far from the critical target customer for the CT. To someone coming from a Model Y, the interior may seem an upgrade. From someone coming from a lot of other vehicles, it could seem wildly spacious. And from a Rivian owner, it could seem like an airplane hanger (had to get in that dig). And for those folks, they’ll take that all day if it means the CT doesn’t have the exterior dimensions of a Raptor.

We’ll see for sure only when the official production unveil comes out. When it does, I’ll be listening whether or not Elon is explicit about interior room comparisons. Because if it’s as big or bigger than an F150 interior, I know we’ll hear it loud and proud - rightfully so.

 

[cvalue13]

Keep the 232" length and 80" width as F150, move the cab forward, keep the legroom, and make the bed 6 feet. Problem solved.

funny you say that

if (contingent!) the interior room, including leg room, is materially less than an F150, I’ll be cursing that 6’ bed

I’d personally take a CT with a 4.5’ Rivian-like bed but an F150 interior, all day over a 6’ bed but Rivian-like interior.

 

[MonkeyDeLuffy]

Not worrying about width +/- 2" but the length...in the bay area, the length dominates the storability of a household.

 

[Crissa]

I’d personally take a CT with a 4.5’ Rivian-like bed but an F150 interior, all day over a 6’ bed but Rivian-like interior.

I would be the opposite. Gimme that cargo space.

-Crissa

 

[Dusty]

Actual picture of how much room I have in my garage wall to door...

C'mon, man. You have GOT to be shitting me. I'm not dealing with the HOA to put a charger outside, especially when I already have one inside.

I'll just let it ride, and wait to hear the real details in a few months.

 

[Roy2001]

if (contingent!) the interior room, including leg room, is materially less than an F150, I’ll be cursing that 6’ bed

I’d personally take a CT with a 4.5’ Rivian-like bed but an F150 interior, all day over a 6’ bed but Rivian-like interior.

Agree that Rivian-like interior is NOT acceptable!

Tesla could make a smaller version of CT to compete with Rivian/Tacoma, but please keep CT as a real full-size truck.

 

[Crissa]

Actual picture of how much room I have in my garage wall to door...

C'mon, man. You have GOT to be shitting me. I'm not dealing with the HOA to put a charger outside, especially when I already have one inside.

I'll just let it ride, and wait to hear the real details in a few months.

Your HOA cannot interfere in you installing a charger in a pre-existing parking spot.

https://pluginsites.org/virginia-right-to-charge-law-is-in-effect/

-Crissa

 

[Dusty]

They can't stop me, sure. But, they can be real jackasses about cosmetics and location.

 

[Crissa]

They can't stop me, sure. But, they can be real jackasses about cosmetics and location.

You're really going to let them push you around?

Anyhow, there are EV groups who might give you support to fight them to make some good case law.

-Crissa

Sponsored