cvalue13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2022
- Threads
- 9
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 1,097
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Vehicles
- F150L
- Occupation
- Fun-employed
- Thread starter
- #1
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.
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):
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.
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.
