FRUNK on the Cybertruck?

[JBee]

Just eyeballing it, but looks to me like the frunk bottom on the Cybertruck is about 8” lower than on the F150. There is a lot of chunk underneath where the truck part of the F150 starts. The side view you posted above doesn’t show how much of that facia is below the frunk bottom at all.

The blue area is space which the F150 has for re-enforcing the front end which the Cybertruck would not. A frunk with a lifting face would reduce total area they can reinforce for impact protection by half versus having a bucket style frunk.

I think the scale of the CT on the left is too small in that comparison. But even there the bumper is doing most of the safety structure on both, as you can also see on the MY frame. The grill can also be compressed into any side structure on impact, like the side doors that are also hinged, meaning the safety issue can be designed around if they wanted to without to much effort or extra material.

My biggest safety concern with the front is if that hood is 3mm SS then where will it go as a nearly incompressible item (because of the flat angle orientation) and if it is that thick, how the CT fares for pedestrian safety. Overall I think the front will be made from much lighter material, and have some sort internal compliant structure. Same for the grill and sides.

For us Aussies this will mean we will need a bull bar (roobar) anyway, which obviously makes the pedestrian safety mute. I would really like to see a easily replaceable, front external multistaage full width airbag at one stage, as this is one of the only things that would be good for both wildlife and humans. It also would give another level of retardation for higher speed impacts, and nearly complete protection for minor impacts.

Sponsored

 

[Ogre]

I think the scale of the CT on the left is too small in that comparison. But even there the bumper is doing most of the safety structure on both, as you can also see on the MY frame. The grill can also be compressed into any side structure on impact, like the side doors that are also hinged, meaning the safety issue can be designed around if they wanted to without to much effort or extra material.

My biggest safety concern with the front is if that hood is 3mm SS then where will it go as a nearly incompressible item (because of the flat angle orientation) and if it is that thick, how the CT fares for pedestrian safety. Overall I think the front will be made from much lighter material, and have some sort internal compliant structure. Same for the grill and sides.

For us Aussies this will mean we will need a bull bar (roobar) anyway, which obviously makes the pedestrian safety mute. I would really like to see a easily replaceable, front external multistaage full width airbag at one stage, as this is one of the only things that would be good for both wildlife and humans. It also would give another level of retardation for higher speed impacts, and nearly complete protection for minor impacts.

Specs on the Ford suggest it’s about 4 inches taller than the Cybertruck. Ford has about 8” of travel and this has the Cybertruck base at the same level as the Ford. Since the Cybertruck’s lowest mode is about 8” should be a good comparison.

It is also about the same as what you posted, as I said above, your shot does not show the difference between functioning truck and the giant skateboard underneath which this does.

Pedestrians crumple a lot easier than even the thin aluminum on an F150. The fact that the Cybertruck front is low enough you go over the hood instead of getting smashed into a giant wall is a huge safety benefit for pedestrians.

 

[JBee]

Specs on the Ford suggest it’s about 4 inches taller than the Cybertruck. Ford has about 8” of travel and this has the Cybertruck base at the same level as the Ford. Since the Cybertruck’s lowest mode is about 8” should be a good comparison.







It is also about the same as what you posted, as I said above, your shot does not show the difference between functioning truck and the giant skateboard underneath which this does.







Pedestrians crumple a lot easier than even the thin aluminum on an F150. The fact that the Cybertruck front is low enough you go over the hood instead of getting smashed into a giant wall is a huge safety benefit for pedestrians.

You are assuming that pedestrians are tall, most of those at risk are short, because of body impact area and also visibility. Any head hitting 3mm SS of that structural windscreen are dead over 20mph. Yes FSD can help here, but it can't overcome the physics.

Either way the structural safety is still intact.

 

[Crissa]

Just eyeballing it, but looks to me like the frunk bottom on the Cybertruck is about 8” lower than on the F150. There is a lot of chunk underneath where the truck part of the F150 starts. The side view you posted above doesn’t show how much of that facia is below the frunk bottom at all.

The blue area is space which the F150 has for re-enforcing the front end which the Cybertruck would not. A frunk with a lifting face would reduce total area they can reinforce for impact protection by half versus having a bucket style frunk.

And this is without the Cybertruck kneeling!

-Crissa

 

[charliemagpie]

https://imagemeasurement.online/image/select

I had used this photo in the past, and worked out its approx. mid height. 12" clearance.

I calibrated using 35" Tyre to come to this measurement. It could possibly lower another 4"

That would make it 35", the height of the tyre. Give or take an inch or two allowing for error.

Hip High !!!

 

[RVAC]

They could it just doesn't make any sense to do it on any existing Tesla models, both in terms of height as the hood is already at about trunk level and because the space is too small to make that worthwhile.

This was covered previously on this thread, with pictures. There is not much height difference neither an issue with the safety structure.

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/frunk-on-the-cybertruck.5807/post-123903

These photos show it well as the body is overlaid on top of the structure. From a crash worthiness perspective 3/Y/S/X could all theoretically have it.

 

[JBee]

https://imagemeasurement.online/image/select

I had used this photo in the past, and worked out its approx. mid height. 12" clearance.

I calibrated using 35" Tyre to come to this measurement. It could possibly lower another 4"

That would make it 35", the height of the tyre. Give or take an inch or two allowing for error.

Hip High !!!

If it's hip height then your head will hit the windscreen, which can't be made compliant like the hood can.

Hence the external airbag being on my wish list.

 

[charliemagpie]

No trouble reaching into the frunk with a heavy box. Or no trouble to rummage around.

 

[Ogre]

No trouble reaching into the frunk with a heavy box. Or no trouble to rummage around.

I’d probably get slapped if I asked to rummage around in her frunk.

 

[scottf200]

Does it need to be structural? What give you that certainty?

A front gate would be awesome. Accessory/aftermarket heaven would ensue!!!
Perfect spot for 4x4 recovery gear, pull-up to a scenic spot unfold the front gate instant couch with a cooler within arms reach.
Frunk mounted tent?
The list goes on.

and yet, every passenger vehicle’s TRUNK is designed analogous to the lightning …
just be a coincidence rather than a decades-long learning around usability and ergonomics

I'm sure there will be a lot of disappoint if they don't match the capability and ease of use of the Ford Lightning and Silverado. That Ford "Mega Frunk" hit it out of the park as far as I'm concerned.

The 9.6 kWh value is the total power for all the outlets combined, but individually the outlets are limited: up to 2.4 kW available through the frunk and up to 7.2 kW through outlets in the cab and bed:
two 120 V outlets in the cab
four 120 V outlets in the front trunk (there are also one USB-C and one USB-A in the frunk)
four 120 V outlets in the bed
one 240 V outlet in the bed
* the XLT trim has only 120 V outlets: two in the cab, two in the bed and four in the trunk.

Ford F150 Lightning "Mega frunk"

Silverado EV

 

[Crissa]

I would rather a frunk that didn't hide children from my driver's view.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

I would rather a frunk that didn't hide children from my driver's view.

-Crissa

In the parking lot at dinner tonight there were 6 trucks. On almost all of them, the hood was chest height or taller on me. These aren’t hiding just children, the driver wouldn’t have been able to see my wife.

These trucks have a 12 foot zone of impaired vision directly in front of the vehicle. It’s a huge safety hazard. It’s mostly not needed with ICE trucks and having it on EVs is reckless.

 

[JBee]

In the parking lot at dinner tonight there were 6 trucks. On almost all of them, the hood was chest height or taller on me. These aren’t hiding just children, the driver wouldn’t have been able to see my wife.

These trucks have a 12 foot zone of impaired vision directly in front of the vehicle. It’s a huge safety hazard. It’s mostly not needed with ICE trucks and having it on EVs is reckless.

The real problem is just short people. Always has been. Time people grew up. ?

 

[cvalue13]

I would rather a frunk that didn't hide children from my driver's view.

-Crissa

These trucks have a 12 foot zone of impaired vision directly in front of the vehicle. It’s a huge safety hazard. It’s mostly not needed with ICE trucks and having it on EVs is reckless.

Personally, 28 years of driving trucks and no known child deaths

 

[Crissa]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...gger-are-front-blind-zones-children-rcna52109

More than twice as many children have died from such crashes when vehicles were moving forward than backward in recent years. An estimated 744 children were killed that way from 2016 to 2020, mostly in driveways and parking lots. In the majority of deaths, the child was hit by an SUV or a pickup truck.

-Crissa

Sponsored