So, Let's Talk About Size Again...

[JBee]

I'm considering a 5kW electric mountain bike. We have a 1kW big adventure fat tire, which is fun, but too long and unwieldy for the complicated 45 degree mountains by my house. At 5k it can do almost 50. There's a 15k version that will do over 90. LOL!

Yesterday I hit my fastest ever on our bike, at 29 in the desert it felt super fast. So of course, I need more. I need shin guards.

Yep more is better! The whole "Stealth electric motorbike" thing is really helpful around here too, in nanny state with 250W and 25kmh limits. Just get an obscure brand with pedals and remove the labelling and hey presto you're legal.

I think the sweet spot is between 5-10kW, but with hydraulic brakes and decent suspension and frame. One thing that is really good for off road is 2x2 drive, really helps stability and performance, and to get the power down.

Sponsored

 

[Mar4k]

This is how it looks like, there is a distinct bow in the roof apex and funk hood too. Even the front grill seems to of been rounded off a bit.

Remember, the grille/nose panel of the CT was *always* rounded.

 

[JBee]

Remember, the grille/nose panel of the CT was *always* rounded.

Really? I can't imagine I missed that!

 

[Mar4k]

Really? I can't imagine I missed that!

Yes really! Look at pictures from that first night. Speaks on some level to smart design I think, to be able to hide that.

 

[JBee]

Yes really! Look at pictures from that first night. Speaks on some level to smart design I think, to be able to hide that.

I dunno I still can't quite see it. Still looks flat to me.

I think the Museum version might have had a bit. The bumper itself is also curved there it seems, but the bottom of the windscreen is normally straight as well...might be lens distortion from using a wide angle camera lens closeup?

This interests me now because we might actually have more prototypes after all then.

 

[Mar4k]

I think the Museum version might have had a bit.

You're assuming the Museum version is a different vehicle! Which it may well be, but I haven't found a picture of it that doesn't look curved.

the bottom of the windscreen is normally straight as well...

I've never seen a picture where the bottom border of the glass wasn't curved. Look at this from reveal night, curved as can be:

might be lens distortion from using a wide angle camera lens closeup?

If that were the case, we'd expect other lines in the image to be curved. They're straight as can be.

Here are two more pictures, one with Leno and one from the unveil night itself. PS I like that you've zeroed in on the windshield curvature, at that's the question that is much more interesting to me. I agree at least some of them seem slightly curved evidenced by where they meet with the roof glass, and no one has talked about that. Edit: I should clarify I'm referring in this last bit to the surface convexity or flatness of the glass, as opposed to the curved border.

 

[JBee]

You're assuming the Museum version is a different vehicle! Which it may well be, but I haven't found a picture of it that doesn't look curved.



I've never seen a picture where the bottom border of the glass wasn't curved. Look at this from reveal night, curved as can be:

If that were the case, we'd expect other lines in the image to be curved. They're straight as can be.

Here are two more pictures, one with Leno and one from the unveil night itself. PS I like that you've zeroed in on the windshield curvature, at that's the question that is much more interesting to me. I agree at least some of them seem slightly curved evidenced by where they meet with the roof glass, and no one has talked about that. Edit: I should clarify I'm referring in this last bit to the surface convexity or flatness of the glass, as opposed to the curved border.

I dunno still...stupid lens distortions, I need some orthographic images. Basically anything shot from a greater distance will better show how much it is curved. Anything close will make it worse as the perspective runs out of whack.

If you look at those two museum photos I posted you can see that one look like the bottom edge of the windscreen is curved, the other looks like it's straight. Same vehicle and same location but different camera/distance.

As for the convex surface curve of the windscreen I also believe this is from lens distortion more than actually being that shape on those earlier models. I also think the Leno and the Museum one are the same, but I'm not 100% if it's the release one.

However the test track version has a fair bit of of convex on the windscreen as can be seen at the top roof apex. The front grill is also rounded and even the two angled edges have a larger/smoother radius. The lights and bumpers are also different on these ones, as were the Rodeo ones, but the Rodeo ones didn't have a convex windscreen from any of the images/videos I saw so far.

But maybe that is all because I'm a good pirate and only have one good eye? Aye, Aye my hearties!

 

[Deleted member 5322]

check this out

 

[JBee]

check this out

That's a pretty close shot again, but there seems to be something there.

It's a bit hard to tell if only the bottom edge is curved or the windscreen convex or both. The frunk lid looks flat still. Technically the frunk lid could be flat and the windscreen convex still if it had a curved edge like that. But I still think the windscreen is flat here, because the reflections of the room wall and ceiling all look straight and perpendicular to me. That would mean though that the bottom edge is cut in a curve and is not straight. Does this mean the front grill is curved though? Hmm I dunno.

 

[Throwcomputer]

That's a pretty close shot again, but there seems to be something there.

It's a bit hard to tell if only the bottom edge is curved or the windscreen convex or both. The frunk lid looks flat still. Technically the frunk lid could be flat and the windscreen convex still if it had a curved edge like that. But I still think the windscreen is flat here, because the reflections of the room wall and ceiling all look straight and perpendicular to me. That would mean though that the bottom edge is cut in a curve and is not straight. Does this mean the front grill is curved though? Hmm I dunno.

That is a normal to barely wide angle lens, not a fisheye lens. Not enough "wideness" to distort angles at that close range. Also, the added curvature that comes from a wide angle lens has less effect on the center of the image and gets stronger to the outside edge of the image. This curved windshield does not change it's arc as you get further from the center of the image.

You are seeing the actual convex surface of the windshield. You just don't want to believe it.

In fact, the drone overhead shots have more perspective distortion than these normal cell phone shots because a telephoto(zoom) lens compresses/flattens perspective more than what would be considered a "normal" lens adds curvature to perspective. That's why photographers call them normal lenses. Most normal representation compared to our natural vision.

 

[JBee]

That is a normal to barely wide angle lens, not a fisheye lens. Not enough "wideness" to distort angles at that close range. Also, the added curvature that comes from a wide angle lens has less effect on the center of the image and gets stronger to the outside edge of the image. This curved windshield does not change it's arc as you get further from the center of the image.

You are seeing the actual convex surface of the windshield. You just don't want to believe it.

In fact, the drone overhead shots have more perspective distortion than these normal cell phone shots because a telephoto(zoom) lens compresses/flattens perspective more than what would be considered a "normal" lens adds curvature to perspective. That's why photographers call them normal lenses. Most normal representation compared to our natural vision.

I agree but the conversation is not the same. As for the "center" of the photo, the last one is square, so obviously cropped from another photo meaning we don't know where it was in the original frame.

Mark4k is saying the front of the CT, the grill part in front of the frunk, was always curved since the reveal. I was skeptical about that. That lead to the conversation of the shape of the bottom border of the windscreen being a curve. We aren't actually talking about if the windscreen is convex, only that if it where how it would affect the photos, and make it difficult to use it as a reference to see if the front grill was in fact curved/convex.

In that regards the two phots of the museum version show both a curved bottom edge of the windscreen and a seemingly mostly straight one. The windscreen itself is however flat not convex from what I can tell from the reflections.

 

[John K]

The most important observation regarding the windshield, the Gaps!

 

[Throwcomputer]

I agree but the conversation is not the same. As for the "center" of the photo, the last one is square, so obviously cropped from another photo meaning we don't know where it was in the original frame.

Mark4k is saying the front of the CT, the grill part in front of the frunk, was always curved since the reveal. I was skeptical about that. That lead to the conversation of the shape of the bottom border of the windscreen being a curve. We aren't actually talking about if the windscreen is convex, only that if it where how it would affect the photos, and make it difficult to use it as a reference to see if the front grill was in fact curved/convex.

In that regards the two phots of the museum version show both a curved bottom edge of the windscreen and a seemingly mostly straight one. The windscreen itself is however flat not convex from what I can tell from the reflections.

You must have a different definition of flat than I do because we've been looking at the same videos and photos and I can clearly see that the windshield has a some convexness to it as compared to the roof glass. The roof glass is what I would call "flat". The windshield 100% has convexness... Granted it's not a great amount of convexness. I'll stop beating this one now though.. cause it really doesn't matter. We haven't seen the final production version yet, as is evident from the multiple different styles of rear light bar on the tailgate and the "chintzyness" of those materials on at least one of them present at the opening.

Regarding front plane.. I agree with you in that it was straight originally, but agree with the other poster that I think it might have some curvature to it now. But who knows what it will have in production.

You can also see that the cold rolled steel sheets are not precisely flat along their surface lengthwise. They all have ripples and waves in the surface panels which you can see when looking down the length of certain panels.. specifically the tailgate back panel I noticed quite a bit of rippling to the surface. That is something I think they might need to sort out by the time they get to production.

 

[JBee]

You must have a different definition of flat than I do because we've been looking at the same videos and photos and I can clearly see that the windshield has a some convexness to it as compared to the roof glass. The roof glass is what I would call "flat". The windshield 100% has convexness... Granted it's not a great amount of convexness. I'll stop beating this one now though.. cause it really doesn't matter. We haven't seen the final production version yet!

Regarding front plane.. I agree with you in that it was straight originally, but agree with the other poster that I think it might have some curvature to it now. But who knows what it will have in production.

You can also see that the cold rolled steel sheets are not precisely flat along their surface lengthwise. They all have ripples and waves in the surface panels which you can see when looking down the length of certain panels.. specifically the tailgate back panel I noticed quite a bit of rippling to the surface. That is something I think they might need to sort out by the time they get to production.

Roger on the windscreen convex. But I 100% agree the track version has it, and a decent amount of it in comparison to the Rodeo one which I still think is pretty flat.

I saw those ripples on the cold rolled steel and I think on the original one they weren't so pronounced as the later versions. This will be a result of getting the SS as flat plate or unrolling it from a SS roll, and will depend on how well their straightening rollers do the job. I'm fairly sure they don't have the straightening setup properly yet for the beta range, as it is structurally unnecessary to get the fit and finish right yet, and that in the final product they will be straight, possibly as part of the process of stamping/folding them into shape. This is inherently a problem with straight panels.

 

[Throwcomputer]

Roger on the windscreen convex. But I 100% agree the track version has it, and a decent amount of it in comparison to the Rodeo one which I still think is pretty flat.

I saw those ripples on the cold rolled steel and I think on the original one they weren't so pronounced as the later versions. This will be a result of getting the SS as flat plate or unrolling it from a SS roll, and will depend on how well their straightening rollers do the job. I'm fairly sure they don't have the straightening setup properly yet for the beta range, as it is structurally unnecessary to get the fit and finish right yet, and that in the final product they will be straight, possibly as part of the process of stamping/folding them into shape. This is inherently a problem with straight panels.

Yeah there are obviously a lot of fit and finish issues with these test vehicles which I assume is related to them being hand built and just test versions. Can't imagine the difficulty and ocd stress they must go through to get panels in perfect alignment in the finished product. I can't handle folding paper or sheets without it driving me nuts. Nevermind having to do that in 3d space out of huge sheets of stainless!

Unfortunately for them, the unpainted stainless makes panel gaps that much more noticeable.

Sponsored