Midgate a No-Go (Assuming Tonneau Patent)?

[cvalue13]

A cluster of evidence below which taken together suggests the midgate is a no-go if the final CT utilizes the known (to me) tonneau patent. (Apologies if I’ve simply missed someone else having laid this out in detail before - please link if so.)

Finally got around to reading the tonneau patent. While patents cover a variety of options and so by no means dictate the ultimate design details of the production version, they are directionally telling of the central design features of the tonneau being patented, and so one could (if interested in such conjecture) infer some possible reasons the midgate will not work on the CT if Tesla materially follows this patent. (And if not this patent, then which?)

And, while it’s never over until “final” design is final (should go without saying), the below points at least satisfy me as to a likely explanation for why a midgate is a no-go in any prototype that is utilizing the design of the known (to me) tonneau patent.

I might also first caveat that I am not a patent lawyer. However, I am a transactional lawyer more than familiar with the general approach of interpretation of language used in any legal document. That said, I suspect an experienced patent lawyer could provide color and nuance that I may overlook.

Those caveats out of the way:

To initially get a visual/video orientation of the below discussion, one can watch this video of the tonneau opening and closing:



Below I first detail the relevant patent bits, followed by some bullet observations/discussion that relate the tonneau patent design to the viability of a functioning midgate.

THE PATENT:

The relevant bit, as indirectly relates to the topic of a midgate:

“When in a retracted or stored position, the tonneau cover 110 is rolled and stored below the junction of the cab 103 and bed 104 as will be described in more detail below.”

Here’s the patent’s Figure 1 relating to the figure illustration numbers imbedded within the text above:

So far, the description above is perhaps argued as consistent with the tonneau rolling fully below the bed, depending on how one views these terms’ meanings. But as described later below in the discussion, even if the tonneau rolls completely below the bed it would create still very awkward if not unusable functionality of the midgate for, eg, camping in the vault with the tonneau closed.
That discussion suggests that, even if the tonneau stores completely below the bed, the midgate concept has material challenges given the functionality and channel path of the deployable tonneau described in this patent.

But there may be greater challenges than just that, because parts of the patent suggest pretty clearly that the tonneau is not stored entirely below the bed/cab when stored. The tonneau will instead according to this patent be partially stored in-between cab and bed, right where a midgate would otherwise be located.

Since it’s hard to visualize by only writing, before quoting the patent application language here is this detail of one the patent’s operative Figure 2 illustrations (provided first without and then with overlayed ‘color’ commentary):

The above video and images in mind (and the relevant figure number references highlighted), it’s a bit easier to understand and interpret the remaining relevant portions of the tonneau patent.

“Now turning to Figure 2, as shown, the tonneau cover 110 in a retracted or stored position forms a coil at a location behind the passenger compartment of the cab 103. The tonneau cover 110 slides down below the level of a rear cab window 140 at the end of the bed 104 so that a driver can see out the rear cab window 140 when the tonneau cover 110 is in the retracted or stored position. In one embodiment, a central motor (shown in Figure 3) turns to unwind the tonneau cover 110 so that it rolls down across the top of the bed 104, and within the channels 150A/150B (on each sidewall of the bed 104).”​

While not exactly precise in its wording, the strongest (but not only) read of the above is that - as depicted in Figure 2 - in the fully stored position the tonneau’s end is resting just below the rear window.

While the above patent quote may permit of a different - to me less likely - reading (e.g. that the tonneau could continue down the channel dither and be entirely rolled), the better reading is made evident by reference the embedded figure number references 103 (eg the bulkhead behind the passenger), 104 (the “end” of the bed teeminating not at the floor but instead at the bottom of the rear window - 140).

Note that this language and Figure definitions describing the uppermost end of the tonneau storing “behind” the passenger, etc., is in contrast to the patent language elsewhere describing the rolling mechanism being “under” the passenger/bed. In other words, the patent interpretation does consistently hold a clear distinction between locations “behind” rather than “under” the passenger location. Accordingly, in the quoted language above, if the upper end of the tonneau stored entirely “under” the bed/passenger compartment, that passage would have just said ”under,” instead.

My best read of this patent, therefore, is that Figure 2 accurately describes the patent’s position of the stored tonneau as including not just the rolled portion “under” the bed/passenger, but also this upper length of tonneau being stored up along and into the bulkhead “behind” the passenger, terminating just below the rear window.

In other words, the upper tonneau length is stored in part where a midgate would be located, with only the remainder of the tonneau rolled below the passenger/bed area

Other portions of the patent application are consistent with if not confirmation of this read of the patent. E.g., that the tonneau is “stored in a compartment in the lower portion of the truck, adjacent the juncture of the cab and the bed.” One other such example is when the patent describes intent to protect the tonneau from damage caused by shifting of materials in the bed:

“The opening [for the tonneau channel] 130 is partially formed from a rear wall 120 of the cab 103. The rear wall 120 is used to protect the tonneau cover 110 in its retracted position from being hit and damaged by an object disposed in the bed 104. For example, when the vehicle 100 is being driven, the objects stored in the bed 104 may shift within the bed 104. The rear wall 120 prevents these objects from striking and possibly damaging the retracted tonneau cover.

Referencing Figure 2 again, the “rear wall 120” is clearly the bed bulkhead just below the window and above the bed floor. Shifting cargo in the bed would not “strik[e] and possibly damag[e]” a tonneau retracted completely below the level of the bed floor.

CONSISTENT WITH VIDEO EVIDENCE:

That the above discussion is the correct read of the patent is supported by the video posted at the top of this post confirms (to me) that at least this videos prototype works in the above described manner.

If one re-watches the video carefully, it can be observed that:

(1) when the tonneau is fully retracted and the Tesla employee pushes the operation button, the tonneau instantly appears under the rear window - which would not be the case if the tip of the tonneau first had to travel from rolled further under the bed;

(2) when the tonneau is instead retracting, in the last moment before the tonneau disappears below the rear window the top of the tonneau can be observed to slow just before, and appear to come to a complete rest just as, clearing the rear window - which is a behavior consistent with coming to rest within the bulkhead.

CONJECTURE ON RESULTING MIDGATE FUNCTIONALITY:

Several details in the patent description, patent imagery, and the existing prototype video suggest a tonneau deployment design that would if not foreclose a midgate, certainly make such a midgate a design challenge:

• first let’s just note the Z-shaped form of the bed’s bulkhead, and wonder how that Z-shape might ever “fold” down (rearward) flat in a way that didn’t render awkward any midgate setup. Perhaps it may fold down towards the cab less awkwardly, but the seating within the truck would be a hindrance needing address (and recent video shows the seats folding up, not down).

• next, whether or not the midgate has place to fold (forward or backwards), and whether or not the tonneau rolls completely below the bulkhead when stored, the channel for the tonneau path is where a midgate would be located. A midgate would be possible in that location only if the folding midgate also folds (or obstructs) the tonneau channel. Folding (or obstructing) that channel would be an engineering challenge. Even if that engineering challenge was overcome, it would result in have several consequences to the operation of the tonneau (since the tonneau channel would be obstructed):

​

• before folding a midgate, the tonneau would have to be either completely stored below the bed (out of the channel), or completely deployed/closed (out of the channel)
• Thereafter, the, to make any future alteration of the tonneau position, the midgate would need to be unfolded (to ‘reconnect’ the tonneau channel)

Accordingly, the mere existence of the tonneau channel at the midgate/bulkhead has several consequences frustrating a useful midgate design. To (for just one example) sleep in the vault using the midgate open and the vault closed, one would need to first close the vault tonneau, then from inside the cab open the midgate to access the closed vault, crawl in. To exit from that position inside the vault with tonneau closed, one would also have to exit into the cab from the vault, being unable to open the tonneau while inside the vault. Possible, but awkward if not claustrophobic, orchestration of midgate utility.​

​

​

• however, the patent (to me) is clear that the tonneau is not stored entirely below the bed/passenger compartment, but instead the upper part is stored within the location of the bulkhead, the tip resting just below the rear window. This would seem to create a more formidable engineering challenge from the perspective of having to fold the tonneau channel with the tonneau inside - UNLESS the midgate can be put down ONLY when the tonneau is in the fully closed or fully stored positions. That set-up and awkward orchestration for use are I think obvious enough to not need recounting.

CONCLUSION:

At least for any vehicle design materially utilizing this patent design for the tonneau, it seems exceedingly unlikely there could be any midgate that did not render the vault/tonneau operation too awkward or useless for practicability.

If the tonneau stores partially within the bulkhead when fully retracted, any midgate would be unlikely to be functional except/unless the tonneau is fully deployed and the vault closed. Access could be had by tailgate or from within the cab only.

If the tonneau stores instead completely below the bed, the same use-case consequences to the midgate result, except allowing the tonneau to be stored either completely retracted or completely deployed.

None of these options seem terribly viable to thr CT having any midgate that doesn’t have bizarre use case limitations. When people who want the midgate lament the possibility of not having one, I don’t think they envision a midgate that basically cannot be operated independent of the vault being “stuck” closed (if it is stored in the bulkhead) or “stuck” fully closed or the vault fully open (if stored under the bed).

If these results are addressed differently by Tesla having alternate tonneau patents, I haven’t seen them. And what little prototype evidence we’ve seen of tonneau operation suggests they are utilizing this patent.

If the ultimate production vehicle also utilizes this parent, and it doesn’t have an optional midgate, I personally feel pretty satisfied as to one key reason. The tonneau is key to the CT’s aerodynamics and functionality. And at least in this patent design, the tonneau design renders a midgate a no-go.

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

Have you ever operated a sliding-glass door, or a pocket door? The door does not slide beyond the frame of the doorway, because doing so would not expand the aperture.

Similarly, designing the vault cover to retract beyond the base of the window is pointless when a mid-gate is not part of the design.

Altering the cover to further retract and accommodate a mid-gate is a minor engineering challenge.

 

[cvalue13]

Altering the cover to further retract and accommodate a mid-gate is a minor engineering challenge.

I don’t think you’re following the discussion.

of course it can go past a midgate location and store under the bed, in another design. And then you have a midgate that requires the vault to be either open whenever the midgate is down, or closed when it’s down. It cannot move while the midgate is down.

I described this. If you feel you want a midgate that requires the vault to be fully open, or fully closed, but unable to switch between, then you’re in luck

I think that would be a silly design. I also think it is not the type of functionality people are wanting in a midgate.

and it’s not the functionality this patent contemplates

 

[FutureBoy]

I don’t think you’re following the discussion.

of course it can go past a midgate location and store under the bed, in another design. And then you have a midgate that requires the vault to be either open whenever the midgate is down, or closed when it’s down. It cannot move while the midgate is down.

I described this. If you feel you want a midgate that requires the vault to be fully open, or fully closed, but unable to switch between, then you’re in luck

I think that would be a silly design. I also think it is not the type of functionality people are wanting in a midgate.

and it’s not the functionality this patent contemplates

Given the design in the patent, the chances of a midgate are slim. If the patent design were modified a bit to make the midgate happen when the tonneau was either fully open or fully closed, then yes, your assessment of the design is valid.

But this is Tesla we are talking about. There is always another design if things are thought through enough. Its just that every design alternative will have pro's and cons.

The main hopes for the midgate are pinned on an Elon tweet.




But since then the only people talking about the midgate are people outside of Tesla with no leaks or insider knowledge to be seen. So, will there be a midgate? Again, chances are slim. It basically all rides on what Elon's consideration of the idea turned up. If an alternative design were considered at least close to being as "cool", technologically reliable, and cost effective then there could be a chance that it got implemented. If not, then the midgate idea is pretty much dead in the water.

The one other caveat to that would be this other Elon tweet:




If I have mapped the questions and answers together correctly I think they turn out like this:

Q: Can the #CYBRTRK pump the HVAC to the truck bed when the tonneau cover is closed for sleeping and camping?

A: Yes

So far, I have not seen anyone talking about how the HVAC system would deal with the truck bed. In the prototypes I have not seen any air outlets either so there really are no clues for how this might work.

Q: is there access from the 2nd row?

A: probably

Well... So there is a little more evidence for at least some kind of access to the bed from the the 2nd row seats. Not saying people will be able to crawl through there. But it looks like at least at one point, Elon thought there would probably be at least some kind of access back and forth. In my mind this is the best evidence to say that the window will be able to roll down between the cabin and the bed.

Q: Also does it have the bio defense filter system?

A: partially

So partial bio defense filter system is hard to know what to do with. Does this just mean that the air in the bed can get bio defense treated air from the cabin somehow but not directly treated for the bed itself? Who knows.

We just have to wait for the production version to see what gets shipped. Till then, I'd say the betting man's money should be on no midgate. But Elon has made many a betting man lose a lot of money so really it's anyone's guess.

 

[cvalue13]

Elon thought there would probably be at least some kind of access back and forth. In my mind this is the best evidence to say that the window will be able to roll down between the cabin and the bed.

roll down window seems the way to get HVAC back in the vault, and is a nice feature when the vault is open. I’ve had Tundra envy for that back window a long while.

 

[JBee]

A cluster of evidence below which taken together suggests the midgate is a no-go if the final CT utilizes the known (to me) tonneau patent. (Apologies if I’ve simply missed someone else having laid this out in detail before - please link if so.)

Finally got around to reading the tonneau patent. While patents cover a variety of options and so by no means dictate the ultimate design details of the production version, they are directionally telling of the central design features of the tonneau being patented, and so one could (if interested in such conjecture) infer some possible reasons the midgate will not work on the CT if Tesla materially follows this patent. (And if not this patent, then which?)

And, while it’s never over until “final” design is final (should go without saying), the below points at least satisfy me as to a likely explanation for why a midgate is a no-go in any prototype that is utilizing the design of the known (to me) tonneau patent.

I might also first caveat that I am not a patent lawyer. However, I am a transactional lawyer more than familiar with the general approach of interpretation of language used in any legal document. That said, I suspect an experienced patent lawyer could provide color and nuance that I may overlook.

Those caveats out of the way:

To initially get a visual/video orientation of the below discussion, one can watch this video of the tonneau opening and closing:



Below I first detail the relevant patent bits, followed by some bullet observations/discussion that relate the tonneau patent design to the viability of a functioning midgate.

THE PATENT:

The relevant bit, as indirectly relates to the topic of a midgate:

“When in a retracted or stored position, the tonneau cover 110 is rolled and stored below the junction of the cab 103 and bed 104 as will be described in more detail below.”

Here’s the patent’s Figure 1 relating to the figure illustration numbers imbedded within the text above:

So far, the description above is perhaps argued as consistent with the tonneau rolling fully below the bed, depending on how one views these terms’ meanings. But as described later below in the discussion, even if the tonneau rolls completely below the bed it would create still very awkward if not unusable functionality of the midgate for, eg, camping in the vault with the tonneau closed.
That discussion suggests that, even if the tonneau stores completely below the bed, the midgate concept has material challenges given the functionality and channel path of the deployable tonneau described in this patent.

But there may be greater challenges than just that, because parts of the patent suggest pretty clearly that the tonneau is not stored entirely below the bed/cab when stored. The tonneau will instead according to this patent be partially stored in-between cab and bed, right where a midgate would otherwise be located.

Since it’s hard to visualize by only writing, before quoting the patent application language here is this detail of one the patent’s operative Figure 2 illustrations (provided first without and then with overlayed ‘color’ commentary):

The above video and images in mind (and the relevant figure number references highlighted), it’s a bit easier to understand and interpret the remaining relevant portions of the tonneau patent.

“Now turning to Figure 2, as shown, the tonneau cover 110 in a retracted or stored position forms a coil at a location behind the passenger compartment of the cab 103. The tonneau cover 110 slides down below the level of a rear cab window 140 at the end of the bed 104 so that a driver can see out the rear cab window 140 when the tonneau cover 110 is in the retracted or stored position. In one embodiment, a central motor (shown in Figure 3) turns to unwind the tonneau cover 110 so that it rolls down across the top of the bed 104, and within the channels 150A/150B (on each sidewall of the bed 104).”​

While not exactly precise in its wording, the strongest (but not only) read of the above is that - as depicted in Figure 2 - in the fully stored position the tonneau’s end is resting just below the rear window.

While the above patent quote may permit of a different - to me less likely - reading (e.g. that the tonneau could continue down the channel dither and be entirely rolled), the better reading is made evident by reference the embedded figure number references 103 (eg the bulkhead behind the passenger), 104 (the “end” of the bed teeminating not at the floor but instead at the bottom of the rear window - 140).

Note that this language and Figure definitions describing the uppermost end of the tonneau storing “behind” the passenger, etc., is in contrast to the patent language elsewhere describing the rolling mechanism being “under” the passenger/bed. In other words, the patent interpretation does consistently hold a clear distinction between locations “behind” rather than “under” the passenger location. Accordingly, in the quoted language above, if the upper end of the tonneau stored entirely “under” the bed/passenger compartment, that passage would have just said ”under,” instead.

My best read of this patent, therefore, is that Figure 2 accurately describes the patent’s position of the stored tonneau as including not just the rolled portion “under” the bed/passenger, but also this upper length of tonneau being stored up along and into the bulkhead “behind” the passenger, terminating just below the rear window.

In other words, the upper tonneau length is stored in part where a midgate would be located, with only the remainder of the tonneau rolled below the passenger/bed area

Other portions of the patent application are consistent with if not confirmation of this read of the patent. E.g., that the tonneau is “stored in a compartment in the lower portion of the truck, adjacent the juncture of the cab and the bed.” One other such example is when the patent describes intent to protect the tonneau from damage caused by shifting of materials in the bed:

“The opening [for the tonneau channel] 130 is partially formed from a rear wall 120 of the cab 103. The rear wall 120 is used to protect the tonneau cover 110 in its retracted position from being hit and damaged by an object disposed in the bed 104. For example, when the vehicle 100 is being driven, the objects stored in the bed 104 may shift within the bed 104. The rear wall 120 prevents these objects from striking and possibly damaging the retracted tonneau cover.

Referencing Figure 2 again, the “rear wall 120” is clearly the bed bulkhead just below the window and above the bed floor. Shifting cargo in the bed would not “strik[e] and possibly damag[e]” a tonneau retracted completely below the level of the bed floor.

CONSISTENT WITH VIDEO EVIDENCE:

That the above discussion is the correct read of the patent is supported by the video posted at the top of this post confirms (to me) that at least this videos prototype works in the above described manner.

If one re-watches the video carefully, it can be observed that:

(1) when the tonneau is fully retracted and the Tesla employee pushes the operation button, the tonneau instantly appears under the rear window - which would not be the case if the tip of the tonneau first had to travel from rolled further under the bed;

(2) when the tonneau is instead retracting, in the last moment before the tonneau disappears below the rear window the top of the tonneau can be observed to slow just before, and appear to come to a complete rest just as, clearing the rear window - which is a behavior consistent with coming to rest within the bulkhead.

CONJECTURE ON RESULTING MIDGATE FUNCTIONALITY:

Several details in the patent description, patent imagery, and the existing prototype video suggest a tonneau deployment design that would if not foreclose a midgate, certainly make such a midgate a design challenge:

• first let’s just note the Z-shaped form of the bed’s bulkhead, and wonder how that Z-shape might ever “fold” down (rearward) flat in a way that didn’t render awkward any midgate setup. Perhaps it may fold down towards the cab less awkwardly, but the seating within the truck would be a hindrance needing address (and recent video shows the seats folding up, not down).

• next, whether or not the midgate has place to fold (forward or backwards), and whether or not the tonneau rolls completely below the bulkhead when stored, the channel for the tonneau path is where a midgate would be located. A midgate would be possible in that location only if the folding midgate also folds (or obstructs) the tonneau channel. Folding (or obstructing) that channel would be an engineering challenge. Even if that engineering challenge was overcome, it would result in have several consequences to the operation of the tonneau (since the tonneau channel would be obstructed):

​

• before folding a midgate, the tonneau would have to be either completely stored below the bed (out of the channel), or completely deployed/closed (out of the channel)
• Thereafter, the, to make any future alteration of the tonneau position, the midgate would need to be unfolded (to ‘reconnect’ the tonneau channel)

Accordingly, the mere existence of the tonneau channel at the midgate/bulkhead has several consequences frustrating a useful midgate design. To (for just one example) sleep in the vault using the midgate open and the vault closed, one would need to first close the vault tonneau, then from inside the cab open the midgate to access the closed vault, crawl in. To exit from that position inside the vault with tonneau closed, one would also have to exit into the cab from the vault, being unable to open the tonneau while inside the vault. Possible, but awkward if not claustrophobic, orchestration of midgate utility.​

​

​

• however, the patent (to me) is clear that the tonneau is not stored entirely below the bed/passenger compartment, but instead the upper part is stored within the location of the bulkhead, the tip resting just below the rear window. This would seem to create a more formidable engineering challenge from the perspective of having to fold the tonneau channel with the tonneau inside - UNLESS the midgate can be put down ONLY when the tonneau is in the fully closed or fully stored positions. That set-up and awkward orchestration for use are I think obvious enough to not need recounting.

CONCLUSION:

At least for any vehicle design materially utilizing this patent design for the tonneau, it seems exceedingly unlikely there could be any midgate that did not render the vault/tonneau operation too awkward or useless for practicability.

If the tonneau stores partially within the bulkhead when fully retracted, any midgate would be unlikely to be functional except/unless the tonneau is fully deployed and the vault closed. Access could be had by tailgate or from within the cab only.

If the tonneau stores instead completely below the bed, the same use-case consequences to the midgate result, except allowing the tonneau to be stored either completely retracted or completely deployed.

None of these options seem terribly viable to thr CT having any midgate that doesn’t have bizarre use case limitations. When people who want the midgate lament the possibility of not having one, I don’t think they envision a midgate that basically cannot be operated independent of the vault being “stuck” closed (if it is stored in the bulkhead) or “stuck” fully closed or the vault fully open (if stored under the bed).

If these results are addressed differently by Tesla having alternate tonneau patents, I haven’t seen them. And what little prototype evidence we’ve seen of tonneau operation suggests they are utilizing this patent.

If the ultimate production vehicle also utilizes this parent, and it doesn’t have an optional midgate, I personally feel pretty satisfied as to one key reason. The tonneau is key to the CT’s aerodynamics and functionality. And at least in this patent design, the tonneau design renders a midgate a no-go.

Thanks for writing up in detail how a midgate will be difficult to implement on the CT, as well as referencing the relevant patent details and drawings. I consider all of you conclusions, as to engineering, and also restricted use cases, as accurate. Most of them have been discussed accross the threads here, but now we have a dedicated thread to link to, to "prove" why not.

There are a couple of things I would like to add.

1. One recent factor, that basically sealed the deal for me on why I think there will be no midgate is that it compromises the cabin bouyancy in amphibious mode. Although it is clear there are heavy seals on the tailgate itself that would keep water out of the bed, the vault cover is likely to be open in boat mode, meaning that water can collect in the bed, and run down through a open midgate into the cabin. A non-opening midgate solves the extra water seal problem, and reduces cabin water ingress (and dirt etc) to zero from the bed. For amphibious mode, the doors will most likely be locked, probably with the windows down. (With manual release still available, or locks disabled if no bouyancy is derived from the cabin). This way extra gear to accommodate a midgate mechanism is avoided, plus given the limited utility, because of the vault cover interfering, an overall safer use of amphibious mode.

2. The vault cover patent clearly describes a methodology to prevent dirt and other aggregate from binding up the vault cover operation. It is very unlikely to load dirt beyond the height of the midgate window sill without exceeding the payload allowance, which would determine the load height. With air suspension it is trivial to calculate bed load, and as such vault position changes could be limited accordingly. Further the vault end sitting on the sill can have a profile which blocks debris from entering the vault roll area, or underlying tracks and motors. Meaning that if the vault cover is fully open, the bed and walls operate as a normal truck bed for the purposes of loading loose materials.

3. Technically the fold up rear seat could also then fold down with the backrest, with a inwards folding midgate. This will however in no way be a flat surface. First the midgate bulkhead wall has a "Z" shape with two bends that follows the contours and angles of the rear seat backrest, and second there is not enough height difference between the bed height and cabin floor height, for the seat to fit inbetween. For the midgate to be flat, you would first have to fold the bottom of the rear seat forwards, and then the backrest and midgate down. This won't work together with the foldup back seat as demonstrated in the beta. The only other way to do the seat folding is to have a recess in the floor for the back seat to fit into to get the same level. But even there you would still not get a flat loading area into the cab because of the Z bend in the midgate bulkhead wall.

4. If you take the design implications further, beyond the different use cases, you also end up in a position that a midgate is just not safe for transporting loads and people in the same volume of the CT. In particular with the vault cover closed, people will not be as inclined to tie down their loads appropriately, because they think the vault cover will stop it from flying away. Reality is that the forces generated by a substantial payload in the rear, of over 1 ton, far exceed the capability of folding seats or other temporary internal structures, to retard. Let alone how they would compromise funtional use of cabin safety gear (seatbelts, airbags etc.). From a liability and safety standpoint it is in Teslas best interest not to have a midgate. Let alone the fact that compensating for the safety implications of a midgate, further add substantially to the cost of the vehicle, with little to no benefit in return on utility by the customer.

5. The other component that was made clear in the recent rear casting leaks is that the midgate bulkhead not only offers good rear payload protection, but is also critical for torsional stiffness and cabin roll-over protection. Although it is possible to engineer a hollow rear bulkhead for a folding midgate, having a fixed bulkhead means the structure will weigh, and cost less. With any EV there's a careful balancing act between trying to add functionality without adding weight, or drag, as to avoid having to add battery capacity to reach range performance. The cost of battery capacity is the single largest cost in a EV, so reducing the need for extra batteries is paramount for affordability and even profitability.

Given your above patent analysis and my points above, I don't think there will be a folding midgate on the current CT design.

 

[cvalue13]

The other component that was made clear in the recent rear casting leaks is that the midgate bulkhead not only offers good rear payload protection, but is also critical for torsional stiffness and cabin roll-over protection.

Reminds me of a related topic already touched on by @FutureBoy above, that I didn’t want to clutter the OP with, as it’s somewhat off-topic as well as more extrapolation as the patent itself does not discuss it. But since it’s on theme:

Consider theses three photo as relates to the possibility of the rear window rolling down:

In the last photo above, the red and yellow rectangles are identical in size

Given the Z-shape of the bulkhead, I can’t imagine this window rolling down.

Unless the window is at an angle matching the bulkhead, and a few inches forward of the bulkhead, such that it slips in a similarly angled pocket between the rear passenger shoulder and the bulkhead.

 

[FarAway]

From:
Tesla Shareholder Says He Has The Best Scoop Yet On The Cybertruck
Furthermore, there will be no passthrough from the bed to the cabin – the so-called midgate – although Matthew says the rear window does go down.

So, if the rear window goes down at least there is a pass through. That's something.
Anyone have any idea the size of the rear window? Not sure if someone could shimmy though when camping, but at least the HVAC could pass through.

 

[cvalue13]

The vault cover patent clearly describes a methodology to prevent dirt and other aggregate from binding up the vault cover operation. …. Further the vault end sitting on the sill can have a profile which blocks debris from entering the vault roll area, or underlying tracks and motors.

And for reason of keeping debris out of the vault, this overhang in yellow makes more sense to me - it’s a eave for the vault aperture

 

[JBee]

Reminds me of a related topic already touched on by @FutureBoy above, that I didn’t want to clutter the OP with, as it’s somewhat off-topic as well as more extrapolation as the patent itself does not discuss it. But since it’s on theme:

Consider theses three photo as relates to the possibility of the rear window rolling down:

In the last photo above, the red and yellow rectangles are identical in size

Given the Z-shape of the bulkhead, I can’t imagine this window rolling down.

Yes exactly. The window has no where it can fit. Without wanting to brag, but all this was self evident when I drew up my own CAD model in 2019, in the week after release. Spending a week recreating the CT details on CAD really gives one a more detailed appreciation for the design and integration of the various components that a casual observers would miss entirely. The same applies to the cabin frunk and bed dimensions, being able to twist and trunk a model in 3D really changes how you see the CT.

Two things I'm still struggling with deciphering is just how much the front windscreen is curved, and from where, and if the CT sidewalls are curved front to rear in a long gradual bow, or if they are in fact completely straight. I believe a curve would be better for aero.

 

[JBee]

From:
Tesla Shareholder Says He Has The Best Scoop Yet On The Cybertruck
Furthermore, there will be no passthrough from the bed to the cabin – the so-called midgate – although Matthew says the rear window does go down.

So, if the rear window goes down at least there is a pass through. That's something.
Anyone have any idea the size of the rear window? Not sure if someone could shimmy though when camping, but at least the HVAC could pass through.

See Cvalue13 posts above your that shows that a slide down window does not fit, because of the Z bend in the midgate bulkhead, the angle of the bulkhead wall, and the interference of the rear seat backrest and vaultcover. Simply a rear slide down window does not work.

 

[cvalue13]

Yes exactly. The window has no where it can fit.

I’m not saying this is likely, but in theory something like the following could possibly make for a window that rolls down - but I’d say it requires the rear window to be at an angle leaning towards the bed

edit to add, the investor prototype window does appear to reflect the bed/tailgate, suggesting that rear glass could in fact be at an angle

 

[FutureBoy]

And for reason of keeping debris out of the vault, this overhang in yellow makes more sense to me - it’s a eave for the vault aperture

I'm curious about the exact window location. If the window is between the tonneau and the cabin, it will keep small fingers, long hair, toys, Chex Mix, etc from getting dropped into the tonneau track area below the window opening.

But if the window is on the other side, between the tonneau track and the bed, it will keep debris from dumps, dust, rain, etc from getting into the tonneau track.

Or do we think there will be glass one either side? If the window doesn't open, it wouldn't be too costly to have glass on either side and provides considerable protection to the occupants and the tonneau itself.

 

[FutureBoy]

Wait...
What if the window flips up instead of rolling down? Or perhaps it is a partially opening slider?

 

[scottf200]

Grabbed some pictures for visual.
Not sure if this spy shot shows some supporting hints.

3rd party Retrax rolling tonneau example that may help visualize some details and how much space this would take up. Their install PDF manual. Also shows drain tube ie. rolling up with rain or wet melting snow, etc on it.

YouTube Retrax video

I was looking for motor wiring here for the cover or the rear window.

Sponsored