Midgate a No-Go (Assuming Tonneau Patent)?

[FutureBoy]

it could yes; and my post did nothing more (clearly, I think) than point out that given this patent’s embodiments (and assuming there’s no other patent we’re unaware of), the design of that tonneau cover presented all kinds of engineering or use-case challenges to a co-located midgate.

specifically, I mentioned a half-dozen times how if a midgate was co-located (eg the engineering bits resolved), there would still be necessary unavoidable impacts to the use-cases of the tonneau.

granted, I did not cover an engineering solution that instead also folded the tonneau itself when the midgate was deployed. But that potential engineering solution has the exact same consequence as the other scenarios I mentioned as being possible: the tonneau would be inoperable whenever the midgate was deployed. And so as I mentioned a half dozen ways in the post, that consequence to use case is certainly possible, but would to me seem to result at best in midgate functionality that is a fraction of the hopes of people wanting a midgate. (Because, for just one re-stated example, the orchestration of using the midgate for camping would mean that one must choose to ‘lock in’ the tonneau in either the fully closed or fully open position for the time the midgare is deployed: if you think through that in practical terms, the aspired to midgate camping solution is now pretty damn awkward.)

That said, I’ll now venture past my OP to an attendant point:

Imagine an engineering solution like the one you proposed, a mid-gate that is so mechanically tied to the functionality of the built-in tonneau mechanisms, and realize one of the following two scenarios would likely be necessary:

(1) Tesla would be looking to similarly patent the utility and design of that functionality every bit as much as the embodiments described in this patent; or

(2) Tesla has that other tonneau+midgate patent waiting in the wings to file more contemporaneously with the release of the truck itself, so as not to spoil the release

Now, possibility (2) above is a viable possibility (which is precisely one of many reasons I explicitly limited the scope of my OP to the contents of the existing patent), but I will say it Carrie’s with it some unlikely assumptions from the perspective of the timing and protections patents may afford, but that companies are often balancing this strategy issue.

But at the end of the day, if someone reads my post and the critique they muster is “but there could be another design,” I will nod my head in agreement and then vaguely gesture to the following quote and ask aloud “what exactly did you take away from the fourth sentence of the post



… “or then the conclusion paragraph?”




“and the thread title?”

“Midgate a No-Go (Assuming Tonneau Patent)?

TLDR

 

[cvalue13]

TLDR

I mean, that you’re not reading was already clear

TLDR version: it’d be clear if you read

 

[JBee]

For the midgate to be functional in any way you first have to find a way to stow the rear seat out of the way, so the midgate can fold down. Folding the vault cover and track is a secondary problem, but there's is no where to put the volume of the rear seat.

 

[cvalue13]

For the midgate to be functional in any way you first have to find a way to stow the rear seat out of the way, so the midgate can fold down. Folding the vault cover and track is a secondary problem, but there's is no where to put the volume of the rear seat.

several design and use-case challenges to a midgate, all obviously overcome if Tesla values the midgate enough

but taking the design of the pre-production prototype to be nearing finality, it just appears all else wasn’t equal enough to prioritize the midgate

Rear seats we’ve seen to me have seemed not so hard a challenge, but certainly not obviously consistent

that said, a solution there could conceivably look like:

(1) bottom of seats flip up (as seen on investor day), then

(2) bulkhead (with seats folded) then flips forward into cabin (the folded seat now becoming the support of the horizontal bulkhead)

But as you imply, the position and width of the seats we’ve seen don’t seem to allow for that geometry to all square up with the position of the bed floor, etc., to create a flat surface

Could conceivably allow for a sort of ski pass through, but I take that to not be the main interest in a true “midgate”

 

[ED_SFO]

There is no mid-gate done! closed thread... Lol

 

[FutureBoy]

There is no mid-gate done! closed thread... Lol

How could it possibly be closed? We're only 4 pages in! If this were a serious thread we'd have to get at least to double digits.

 

[cvalue13]

How could it possibly be closed? We're only 4 pages in! If this were a serious thread we'd have to get at least to double digits.

you saying OP doesn’t count for double digit length alone!?

 

[FutureBoy]

you saying OP doesn’t count for double digit length alone!?

Well, if you really want to get into it...

From what I've observed, when people make longggggg posts (I'm guilty of this) the thread tends to die much quicker than if they just post their thoughts piece-meal with quick rebuttals to everyones replies. That tends to push the threads to double digits easily. In the past there have been some rally pointless arguments that have been made in single paragraph per replies over multiple threads that just would not end till all the "related" (unrelated till hi-jacked by the single argument poster) thread pages ballooned into multi-digits.

On the other hand, if one were making very long arguments (doesn't really matter the quality) a majority of readers just skip it. The few who engage might make a few comments here and there but if it takes a long reply, there are very few who put up the effort to do all that work. Without enough replies/rebuttals, the thread tends to end quicker.

But that's just the pattern I've seen. Nothing specific to this thread or OP (you in this case).

 

[cvalue13]

But that's just the pattern I've seen. Nothing specific to this thread or OP (you in this case).

I certainly know and appreciate this dynamic.

I write this sort of post more as motivation for crystallizing and organizing my thoughts in a single spot.

Then it’s left to the (rare) similarly-minded gluttons like @JBee to engage, and then few other folks to comment in ways that make clear they didn’t really read or respond to the post itself.

The TLDR: not in it for clicks

 

[Crissa]

So you’re requirement in a patent is to prove the non-existence of a thing by an explicit reference to its non-existence?

You said the patent rules it out.

So where, in the text of the patent, does it do so?

You are gaslighting while the actual title of the thread says the opposite.

Now, do I think it is going to work like that? At this point my internal view is that without the bulkhead being solid (no opening) the forces on the body of the truck would more easily stress the joints between the exoskeleton and the battery pack. If those forces were too strong, it would collapse the body like a cardboard box that has the top and bottom loose/open.

That’s just my intuition though. I am a wishful pass through proponent but a practical no pass through believer.

Your intuition is... why would it do that? Certainly the bulkhead is stronger, but lots of things are hollow inside and still have strength.

Like the truss bridge the Cybertruck structure resembles.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

You said the patent rules it out.

So where, in the text of the patent, does it do so?

See below post:

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.

 

[JBee]

I certainly know and appreciate this dynamic.

I write this sort of post more as motivation for crystallizing and organizing my thoughts in a single spot.

Then it’s left to the (rare) similarly-minded gluttons like @JBee to engage, and then few other folks to comment in ways that make clear they didn’t really read or respond to the post itself.

The TLDR: not in it for clicks

Hahaha... it's actually quite easy to get a thread into double digits, you just do what I do and keep on writing till it's full!

But I agree, I'm only here for meaningful conversations and information exchange, but also some relationship and opportunity building, and as such have never even actually considered the thread length to ever be a metric of how good a thread "is".

An amount or math has never, and will never be a metric of how good something is.

In fact I often wished in conversations like these that, a bit like "community notes" on Twitter, or a "wiki page", the dominate most important outcomes of conversation, either way they may be, would be complied and presented in the original post as a "result of enquiry" summary. For others to catch up on and then engage with. For me it's actually tiresome and time consuming, let alone cumbersome to read each post to gleen meaningful or useful content to engage with, that are mostly not repetitive or genuine. That way I believe many would invest more time understanding in the OP, and engage appropriately to further that subject.

So not just to talk and hang with like minded people with common interests, which is good in itself, but also to have a meaningful output that could help someone else.

Maybe one day ChatGPT can do this for us in a unbiased way.

In any case back to the Midgate affair:

several design and use-case challenges to a midgate, all obviously overcome if Tesla values the midgate enough

but taking the design of the pre-production prototype to be nearing finality, it just appears all else wasn’t equal enough to prioritize the midgate

Rear seats we’ve seen to me have seemed not so hard a challenge, but certainly not obviously consistent

that said, a solution there could conceivably look like:

(1) bottom of seats flip up (as seen on investor day), then

(2) bulkhead (with seats folded) then flips forward into cabin (the folded seat now becoming the support of the horizontal bulkhead)

But as you imply, the position and width of the seats we’ve seen don’t seem to allow for that geometry to all square up with the position of the bed floor, etc., to create a flat surface

Could conceivably allow for a sort of ski pass through, but I take that to not be the main interest in a true “midgate”

Dimensionally, from what I can tell from my CAD drawing, the height of the top of the structural battery pack to the top of the rear bed floor is not enough to compress the rear seat and backrest together, to allow a flat folding, hinged at the bed floor midgate. The height difference between the bed floor and the cabin floor is not enough to fit a seat and backrest inbetween.

The only way to solve this is to either have a large enough hollow recess in the top of the structural battery (cabin floor) like this in the Jazz:


or have rear seat that folds forwards so the rear seat back can fold flat. Like this:

Which in turn means the fold up rear seat won't work, as it can above in the Jazz.

As can also be seen in the Jazz video, a completely flat folding midgate/rear seat, with no bulkhead or meaningful load retention method, is also inherently dangerous to any passengers in the cabin, especially considering the CT payload capacity.

This is a non-trivial safety problem as is clearly shown in this video, despite having a bed and cabin wall to protect the passengers:

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Hahaha... it's actually quite easy to get a thread into double digits, you just do what I do and keep on writing till it's full!

But I agree, I'm only here for meaningful conversations and information exchange, but also some relationship and opportunity building, and as such have never even actually considered the thread length to ever be a metric of how good a thread "is".

An amount or math has never, and will never be a metric of how good something is.

In fact I often wished in conversations like these that, a bit like "community notes" on Twitter, or a "wiki page", the dominate most important outcomes of conversation, either way they may be, would be complied and presented in the original post as a "result of enquiry" summary. For others to catch up on and then engage with. For me it's actually tiresome and time consuming, let alone cumbersome to read each post to gleen meaningful or useful content to engage with, that are mostly not repetitive or genuine. That way I believe many would invest more time understanding in the OP, and engage appropriately to further that subject.

So not just to talk and hang with like minded people with common interests, which is good in itself, but also to have a meaningful output that could help someone else.

Maybe one day ChatGPT can do this for us one day in a unbiased way.

In any case back to the Midgate affair:



Dimensionally, from what I can tell from my CAD drawing, the height of the top of the structural battery pack to the top of the rear bed floor is not enough to compress the rear seat and backrest together, to allow a flat folding, hinged at the bed floor midgate. The height difference between the bed floor and the cabin floor is not enough to fit a seat and backrest inbetween.

The only way to solve this is to either have a large enough hollow recess in the top of the structural battery (cabin floor) like this in the Jazz:


or have rear seat that folds forwards so the rear seat back can fold flat. Like this:

Which in turn means the fold up rear seat won't work, as it can above in the Jazz.

As can also be seen in the Jazz video, a completely flat folding midgate/rear seat, with no bulkhead or meaningful load retention method, is also inherently dangerous to any passengers in the cabin, especially considering the CT payload capacity.

This is a non-trivial safety problem as is clearly shown in this video, despite having a bed and cabin wall to protect the passengers:

I do think that's an issue with the CT having a midgate. The batteries push the seats upward, making a fold flat surface impossible.

 

[JBee]

I do think that's an issue with the CT having a midgate. The batteries push the seats upward, making a fold flat surface impossible.

What about the safety implications of having a midgate and a high payload capability?

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

What about the safety implications of having a midgate and a high payload capability?

Safety for passenger or the vehicle? I don't see any issue for the passengers assuming they are aware of what they're doing. For the vehicle, I don't know and don't care enough to figure it out since I think the topic is done as production comes close.