Model S vs. Cybertruck size comparison side-by-side (photo)

[anionic1]

You must be looking at the previous gen Model S width, the new one is wider.

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-91E5877F-3CD2-4B3B-B2B8-B5DB4A6C0A05.html

It's likely losing 5% from the 2019 concept, 84" x .95 = 79.8".

I am sure that has to do with energy efficiency. If they are cutting back key dimensions such as length, width and height by 5% they could see weight and volume reductions in the 10-15% range.

 

[RVAC]

I am sure that has to do with energy efficiency. If they are cutting back key dimensions such as length, width and height by 5% they could see weight and volume reductions in the 10-15% range.

Probably but I'd rather they come up short of the 500mi range. Energy density at cell and pack level will keep increasing with time whilst you can't really make a running change to dimensions once you've gone into production.

Also if we take Model S and X for example you'll see the difference in range is not that big (50mi) despite the fact that there is a bigger change in frontal area than there would be between say an 84" wide CT and an 80" wide one and there's also a difference in drag coefficient between S and X which you would not have between the two CT sizes given the shape of the vehicle would remain identical.

 

[anionic1]

Probably but I'd rather they come up short of the 500mi range. Energy density at cell and pack level will keep increasing with time whilst you can't really make a running change to dimensions once you've gone into production.

Also if we take Model S and X for example you'll see the difference in range is not that big (50mi) despite the fact that there is a bigger change in frontal area than there would be between say an 84" wide CT and an 80" wide one and there's also a difference in drag coefficient between S and X which you would not have between the two CT sizes given the shape of the vehicle would remain identical.

I have a family of 6 so I am very much hoping they at least kept the 6 seats. I am fine with size reductions. Actually I think most trucks are much larger than 80% of the people buying trucks need. I have a Ford Ranger right now and I think its big enough for most non commercial uses. I saw a study recently that showed vehicle sizes on a steady increase in size over the last couple decades. I trust that Tesla knows what they are doing regarding the size. I just really hope we didn't lose that 6th seat.

 

[Crissa]

and then go on and say the triangle beta is 79" wide. It's either one or the other ... unless you think they put amber marker lights on the square beta (i.e. alpha prototype) for shits and giggles. Same goes for @Crissa.

...Why am I in this paragraph?

-Crissa

 

[RVAC]

I have a family of 6 so I am very much hoping they at least kept the 6 seats. I am fine with size reductions. Actually I think most trucks are much larger than 80% of the people buying trucks need. I have a Ford Ranger right now and I think its big enough for most non commercial uses. I saw a study recently that showed vehicle sizes on a steady increase in size over the last couple decades. I trust that Tesla knows what they are doing regarding the size. I just really hope we didn't lose that 6th seat.

You're right in principle but that's not what the market seems to want though and it's not just pick up trucks but large SUV's as well, a Jeep Wagoneer is 83.6" wide. With Ford Ranger interior volumes you're not getting a sixth seat or generous rear passenger leg room so if Cybertruck due to its geometry has a more limited interior volume than a full size truck despite equal dimensions I think down sizing to release specs (231.7x79.8") would be a mistake.

...Why am I in this paragraph?

-Crissa

Because you were also arguing there was nothing that indicated a difference in width between Alpha and Beta proto yet agreed the Beta is 79.8" wide.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I know, I've been saying the 2019 concept is over sized for ages. That was MotorTrend, they're the ones that got behind the scenes access. They stated the wheelbase was 150", I don't recall them ever stating 250" in length. What they did say is an "overall length close to a crew cab long-bed half-ton pickup".



This is the one that was being discussed as square mirror beta (i.e. one of the alpha protos), it has to be over 80" or else the amber marker lights wouldn't be there.

We now know that the Beta at Investor day was also over 80". This was my point about baseless conclusions. Square mirror beta and triangle mirror beta were likely the same size.

 

[RVAC]

We now know that the Beta at Investor day was also over 80". This was my point about baseless conclusions. Square mirror beta and triangle mirror beta were likely the same size.

We now know absolutely nothing, he both stated 84" width and 5% reduction ... only one of the two statements can be true. If it's a 5% reduction then the truck is 79.8" wide.

Also you keep contradicting yourself every other post, just here you were passing the 250" length of the OG as fact and stated the beta is 79" wide so by your own definition you were engaging in baseless assumptions.

Yup. The prototype was actually 250" in length, 84"wide. The specs displayed at launch were 79X230", so they fully intended it to be smaller than the proto from the get-go. The Beta is probably 79X230, not an additional 5% smaller than that.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

We now know absolutely nothing, he both stated 84" width and 5% reduction ... only one of the two statements can be true. If it's a 5% reduction then the truck is 79.8" wide.

Also you keep contradicting yourself every other post, just here you were passing the 250" length of the OG as fact and stated the beta is 79" wide so by your own definition you were engaging in baseless assumptions.

Nope. I said probably, making it clear I was speculating. And you can reduce the overall size of the vehicle by 5% without reducing the width. It's a foot shorter.

 

[RVAC]

And you can reduce the overall size of the vehicle by 5% without reducing the width. It's a foot shorter.

Listen to the video again starting from 6:38

​

"When I was talking to the staff about the dimensions essentially what they said is in 2019 when they unveiled the prototype it was a bigger vehicle so they had to shrink everything by about 5%; all dimensions by about 5% so the vehicle would fit in most garages"​

He also stated later on the 6th seat was removed because of the 5% shrink which backs up the reduction in width not just length.

Nope. I said probably, making it clear I was speculating.

You passed off the 250" length of the 2019 concept as a fact, no probably there.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Listen to the video again starting from 6:38

​

"When I was talking to the staff about the dimensions essentially what they said is in 2019 when they unveiled the prototype it was a bigger vehicle so they had to shrink everything by about 5%; all dimensions by about 5% so the vehicle would fit in most garages"​

He also stated later on the 6th seat was removed because of the 5% shrink which backs up the reduction in width not just length.



You passed off the 250" length of the 2019 concept as a fact, no probably there.

That part is fact. It was over 250".

 

[RVAC]

That part is fact. It was over 250".

Still waiting on the proof.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Still waiting on the proof.

Your validation is irrelevant to me, so you can find it on your own.

 

[Crissa]

Because you were also arguing there was nothing that indicated a difference in width between Alpha and Beta proto yet agreed the Beta is 79.8" wide.

There is nothing indicating a difference in width other than the lights we see sometimes and not. And no, I didn't agree the Beta is 79", I was just indicating good points and evidence was made.

We don't even know these are different trucks.

-Crissa

 

[RVAC]

Your validation is irrelevant to me, so you can find it on your own.

Translation: I do not have any proof.

The whole reason I brought this up is to highlight the hypocrisy of telling others they make baseless assumptions and that you do not make baseless assumptions to then turn around and, by your own definition, do the exact same thing one page later. Personally I could care less as it's fairly obvious when something is an opinion or not given nobody on here has insider information so I don't see the need to add all kinds of qualifiers before every sentence.

There is nothing indicating a difference in width other than the lights we see sometimes and not. And no, I didn't agree the Beta is 79", I was just indicating good points and evidence was made.

We don't even know these are different trucks.

-Crissa

I fail to see what the good point and evidence was. Stating the OG is 250" in length but providing no proof? Or stating the triangle beta probably is 79.8" wide which is in direct contradiction to the previously made statement that there is no difference in width?

 

[Crissa]

I fail to see what the good point and evidence was. Stating the OG is 250" in length but providing no proof? Or stating the triangle beta probably is 79.8" wide which is in direct contradiction to the previously made statement that there is no difference in width?

I'm sorry my random clicking generic approval buttons upset you.

-Crissa