So the Cybertruck fits in a garage (at under 19ft long)... But was the size reduction worth it for you?

[greggertruck]

Yeah, it’s not a perfect 1-for-1, but it’s pretty good and good enough to draw into question anyone saying the “nose” on the CT is wildly more stumpy than other trucks.

the CT nose *appears* materially more stumpy due to the design, but on a dimensions basis it’s just … not





it’s a pretty rough hypothetical, but:

if we shorten a CT with a 6’1” bed to instead a 5.5’ bed like an F150 SCREW, that equates to a CT that is roughly 12” shorter than the F150

So, why’s a CT with a 5.5’ bed a good 12” shorter than a an F150 with a 5.5’ bed?

Again, only a thought experiment

Got it, so to push the question back in a different worded way, "how is Cybertruck smaller in dimension, but has a bigger bed space than the F150?"

I think they compromised in frunk space, Lightning frunk for instance appears to effectively take up the full engine bay. Cybertruck frunk looks basically like this:

The Cybertruck frunk, if I have understand correctly, is just the area in front of the wheels, it doesn't really push back. Yesterdays deck you can actually even see the mounting points for the frunk tub!
orange is the lining of the frunk tub, green is where I believe it actually bolts down.

Compare to this unmarked

All that "dead" space behind is where motors go, ac system, fan etc. In the OG Cybertruck, this was sandwiched on top of itself. That little typical Tesla frunk was a top on top of the systems that are now instead mounted behind, between the wheel wells.

NOW... "what about the bed?!"

Well, the bed protrudes into the backrest of the Cybertruck - we al know. One big benefit to Cybertruck build style is, unlike a traditional body on frame/ ladder truck, there is no brake in the bed / cab. On a regular truck... You lose a couple inches right there between space and steel. I'd say 2, roughly. It is my belief they are quite possibly not spouting the floor length of the bed, but rather the length to the backrest. I think that length, to the backrest, is right at 6', while the floor begs an additional several inches, landing at nearly 6'3" or so. That's 3" or 4" lost/ gained, depending how you see it, thanks to the backrest overhang.

So to tag back to the primary question of "how did Cybertruck get a bigger bed in a smaller package and still run around claiming it's a full size pick up?"

They didn't run with a preexisting truck style, and donate space to a semi useless frunk. The frunk on Cybertruck is plenty big! Highly effective, and very useful. To put it nicely, the Lightning is too useful. It's just mondo and has been both the butt of jokes, and praise! They got that - the mega frunk. It's huge! But really, it's in the way. So Cybertruck chopped some front, about 4" and made a more efficient front build out, while still maintaining it's great frunk design!

How often do you use for frunk, @cvalue13 or any other Lightning owners. It's not specifically IF you do, it's how empty it stays really. I'd wager that much of the space is generally unused, and that Cybertruck will be super useful.

Hope this makes sense, curious of your thoughts.

Sponsored

 

[CyberBC]

I am trying to replace my Dodge Dually and Chevy Volt with one vehicle. I think this Cybertruck will be about as close as I can get. I'm ok with a little swing towards the Volt to make it better for people with smaller garages.

 

[anionic1]

Spoken like someone who hasn't been the victim of random vandals. As I said, I live downtown. It's not a bad or unsafe community, but every town of any size has drunks and druggies now. They do stupid things. And I have had multiple cases of vandalism and theft, almost 1 per year of living here. Of course I have cameras, there are police and I have insurance. But all of those things are a tremendous, unsettling hassle. The easiest solution is simply make it impossible for the incident to occur. Do you like waking up to a smashed windshield and then spending the day dealing with police and insurance instead of what you planned?

Same with cold. Sure you can accept less range keeping it outside, but why do you want to, if you don't have to?

Sorry to hear about the vandalism. That is no fun. Generally I pictured the truck as being tougher than needing a garage, but I do see the benefits.

 

[cvalue13]

So to tag back to the primary question of "how did Cybertruck get a bigger bed in a smaller package and still run around claiming it's a full size pick up?"

some helpful thoughts in there (and confirms my separate view of the Frunk size)

but none of it catches the drift of the thought experiment

you’re conversation above focuses on one side of the coin: the CT is ~4.5” shorter than an F150 SCREW, but the CT manages to have a bed that is ~7” longer - great trick, I’m here for it.

but to pull off the above trick, the inverse is also true: the parts of the CT that are *not* the bed are ~11.5” *shorter* than the parts of the F150 that are not the bed

Accordingly, while we can all agree it is great that the CT bed is ~7” longer than the F150 SCREW bed, it begs the question of so where compared to the F150 did the CT shave off the other 12” ?

At a high level, the answer has to be that the CT’s nose to bulkhead length is roughly 12” shorter than the length of an F150’s Nose to bed bulkhead

Which is why I pointed out that the answer is *not* the “useless” space forward of the wheel-wells, as that dimension is roughly identical between the trucks

And I’m not sure that I buy that a material amount of the difference is the bed bulkhead area. Factoring in the tonneau channel, etc, there’s just not that much more space between an F150 cab rear and its bed front.

in any event, to answer your musings over the Frunk:

How often do you use for frunk, @cvalue13 or any other Lightning owners. It's not specifically IF you do, it's how empty it stays really. I'd wager that much of the space is generally unused, and that Cybertruck will be super useful.

all the time I use it. It’s among the top three most useful differences between the ICE and Lightning, and an absolute game-changer for almost anyone who’s driven a truck for decades.

which brings me to:

They didn't run with a preexisting truck style, and donate space to a semi useless frunk. The frunk on Cybertruck is plenty big! Highly effective, and very useful. To put it nicely, the Lightning is too useful. It's just mondo and has been both the butt of jokes, and praise! They got that - the mega frunk. It's huge! But really, it's in the way. So Cybertruck chopped some front, about 4" and made a more efficient front build out, while still maintaining it's great frunk design!

Bro

Dont make me go pull receipts

Pretty certain that just 6-8 months ago you were among the people hee-hawing about how the size of CT’s mega Frunk was going to put the Lightning to shame, fit more things, be even more awesome-bigger, etc.

This about-face of narrative is almost painful to watch!

I’ll tail off with a different question:

We know the CT bed is now ~6” shorter. We know the Frunk is materially smaller than earlier thought.

Given that the Lightning Frunk volume is 14.1 cubic feet. And given that an 8’ truck bed has 77 cubic feet of volume:

Where, then, do you think Tesla has put the “100 cubic feet of exterior, lockable storage”?

I’d guess the CT Frunk ends up being half the lightning, say 7cu feet

If the CT bed (not counting the sails) is 6’ long, by the standard 19” high, by 50” wide, that’s 39.5cu feet. The sails are less than half that, but I’ll give it to them for the moment, that’s a bed volume of 60cu Feet

that gets us to Frunk + bed/tonneau and f 67cu feet

You hiding some sail storage deets? 30+ cu ft is a long way to go!

 

[futureproof]

The main reason they shrank the CT was to fit in the Boring tunnel - that likely meant not only reducing its width but also its length to fit in the elevators.

 

[futureproof]

It'll be interesting to see the final width dimensions as this will majorly affect if the interior "feels" like a full size truck or not.

"This is the first truck that we're aware of that will have four doors over a six-foot bed and fit into a 20-foot garage. So, it's a -- it's sort of biggish on the outside, but it's even bigger on the inside. So, it's a -- that's a -- one of the elements of good design is it should feel bigger on the inside than it looks on the outside. And this is -- this is no small car.

But we -- we've -- we really cared about the exterior dimensions of the Cybertruck down to the last millimeter. So, it's just what you're trying to get right in the middle of the Goldilocks zone, not too big, not too small, and then really maximize the -- the utility of the volume."

- Elon Musk, July '23 earnings call

 

[jerhenderson]

pffffft..... garages.....

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Were the size sacrifices worth it?

I don’t care one way or another. Well, actually, if it made delivery take longer I do care.

 

[AlDente]

Most of the family cars in China are parked in the basement of high-rise residential buildings. Generally, the size of these parking spaces is only 2.5m*5.5m. If you want to open up sales in China, it is very wise to properly control the size of the car.

Based upon a recent visit there, the Ford F150 is very popular in China. Shrinking the Cybertruck further will not be necessary should Tesla decide to address that market with the Cybertruck.

 

[Kremmen]

it really looks to me like they shaved that 6" off the front end to make it fit in a garage and it doesn's look nearly as good.
This sacrifice circled in the image below. And dont try to say camera angle. because both are fairly equal. That stubbiness almost certainly adds to the drag on the vehicle. The geometry of the CT makes it very sensitive to proportionality. The old front end looked better. And i guess my point is that if the purpose of stubbing the front end was to fit in a garage, that was a dumb decision IMO. I guess the Rivian will fit in a garage so maybe they were worried about losing sales because of it. The production bottom image looks like its missing the front end from the side.

You are right. This is what they did. They basically cut the entire nose off the vehicle. It's more like a foot than 6 inches.

Tragic. A veritable travesty.

I'm kidding of course. You KNOW it doesn't look like this now. Most of the shrink came at the cost of the bed, if the nose is shorter it kept the same shape and was at most flattened back a few inches. There is no huge, dead-flat front end.

Just look at any pics or film of the late betas and the new Austin-built RC. Same basic geometry.

The truth is, in the pic which prompted your vent, the nose was still there (check other pics from the same Petersen event). It WAS camera angle - or even more so, distance from camera, and lens focal depth.

Basically, the nose was around the corner.

 

[charliemagpie]

I will be a regular user, but not for work.. for towing.
I need range and power and strength.... reliability and safety.

Inches are not relevant. I need storage, but I have my house behind me, so knick knacks , portable fridge, recovery... the Frunk seperates some items by type... which is handy.

The great bonus for a truck that fits in a garage for people like me, is for easier parking when I go to the supermarket. Huge upside for me.

I think it will be a winner in Caravan land.

 

[Kremmen]

Though this photo angle does deceive a bit. If you look at others with a more frontal angle you will see the nose is not as stubby as it appears here.

Arguable whether it's any stubbier than the original concept. Personally I think it is, but only by a few inches at the very front. I.e. so the corner panels have a reduced angle.

It's just an impression, could be wrong. Mostly this is just a meme; the idea that there's a big change is not based on anything more than badly chosen photos.

 

[Kremmen]

Where'd that other 12" go?

Because I can't believe anyone who says it all came off the nose - people fail to realize just how 'stubby' an F150's "nose" is past the front fender (it's the CT's windshield line that creates that stubby looking effect). The CT nose may be a *bit* shorter, but not by no 12"!

Amen. The windshield line is lower/further forward vs. the Concept. If it wasn't, there'd be a jarring mismatch with the lowered side window sill line. I've been saying this over and over to people who are hung up on this point.

So that ate into the fore/aft frunk lid length a little. And maybe the front curved panel is ~3" aft of where it was on the Concept, or something like that. But not much!

And we now see a bend in the rear roof/sail line which wasn't there on the Concept.

There's the majority of our shrink.

 

[Cyberman]

I didn't see an option for "Fuck no". I have no intention of trying to cram anything in my Garage. I mean, the garage is what Americans use to stuff all the crap they can't fit in the house.
Right?

 

[Setok]

Oh... I'm sorry. Impact resistant. I'm glad you pointed out the inaccurate minutiae of my statement. You are my hero for pointing it out!

No need to be snarky. I just pointed it out as it’s a very common misconception and people are potentially going to be disappointed if they live by that assumption.

Sponsored