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

[cvalue13]

It's the unibody design. Just like Cybertruck.

And you’re onto the point! We’re having a banner day!

But the unibody is not the material difference in length between the Avalanche and F150

​

Avalanche:​

Front Leg Room - 41.30​

Second Row Leg Room - 39.10​

TOTAL: 80.4”​

​

F150 SCREW​

Front Leg Room - 43.9​

Second Row Leg Room - 43.6​

TOTAL: 87.5” ​

​

That 7” in lost cab depth is a material portion of the explanation of the Avalanche’s short length compared to an F150.

And that’s 7” measured only by leg room - actual cab depth can be even shorter compared to F150 (if eg F150 seat backs are thicker, and similar packaging differences).

At which point I remind you that short as the Avalanche is, it’s 1” longer than a hypothetical 5.5’ box CT:

• Take a ‘normal’ CT that is 227.5” long
• take 7” off its back end to shorten its 6’1” bed down to 5’6”
• you now have a hypothetical 5.5’ box CT that is 220.5” long, compared to the Avalanche at 221.3” long

Put differently: ignoring the CT’s extra 7” of bed length, the rest of the CT is 1” shorter than an even an Avalanche.

And at least 7” of that in an Avalanche is cab space. 7” meaningful in terms of leg room. That’s more than the difference between a Tacoma double cab and an a Avalanche.

TACOMA Double Cab:
Front Leg Room - 42.9
Second Row Leg Room - 32.6
TOTAL: 75.5

A Tacoma double cab has only 5” less cabin measured by legroom than an Avalanche.

That same Tacoma has 12” less cabin measure by legroom than an F150 SCREW

An Avalanche has 7” less cabin measured by legroom than an F150 SCREW



Which all is what I was driving at in my earlier posts:

If a CT is 5” shorter than an F150 SCREW, but the CT’s length includes 7” more bed than an F150 SCREW, it means that somewhere outside the bed of the CT there is 12” less length.

Maybe eg an 1” goes to the CT having a thinner tailgate than an F150 SCREW. Maybe another 1” is here and another 1” is there. And maybe 3” is spaced saved by the unibody - but that still leaves 6” unaccounted for.

Similarly, you’re right: the Avalanche has the ~same sized bed as an F150 SCREW but is 13” shorter. More than half of that shortness is made up in the cab having materially less depth.

Is that true of the CT? I don’t know.

But the photos of the interior suggests it sure could be (that back seat is small).

In any event, somewhere forward of the bed of the CT, it’s 12” shorter than an F150 SCREW

Sponsored

 

[Derek]

Elon was proud to announce today on the earnings call that it will fit in a standard 20' garage as it is 19ft or less. My first thought was please don't tell me they made great efforts to shrink the truck so it fits in a garage. The front end does not look as good as it did when it was revealed in 2019 and that is indisputable. Some have argued that it had to do with crash safety but that has not been confirmed as far as I know. Elon definitely did say a couple years back that they were entertaining shrinking the truck 6" or so to fit in a garage. If they made it 19' to fit in a 20' garage that obviously isnt much clearance and as i stated earlier. i havent ever met a truck owner that really wanted to park in a garage. I get the cold weather folks will appreciate it and possibly some others but I imagine its a small percentage and I would personally much rather have the original front end in sacrifice of it not fitting in the garage. I think i mostly posted this to vent. Here is a link to another post that shows the differences better. I don't pretent to understand crash requirements but 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. link

here is an image from that same thread:

I currently park my F150 in the garage because the heat is so high in Texas and it makes it easier to get in and go when it’s not 115 degrees inside the truck. Thank you Tesla for making the CT garage compatible.

 

[Derek]

How come the same people saying, "it's a truck not a luxury vehicle, why would you park it in the garage?" Are the same people crying because it's less pretty? Lol

The functionality is what you guys care about right? You're getting a 6+ foot bed, full 4 doors, so your storage is already like. Gas truck but then you'll also have a frunk (even if slightly smaller than it would've been).

Feels like you don't agree with your own logic

There’s no reason to have a longer front end as there is no ICE there. Wake up and see the advantages of less front end and, oh BTW, it coincidentally fits in the standard garage. Win, win!

 

[Gurule92]

There’s no reason to have a longer front end as there is no ICE there. Wake up and see the advantages of less front end and, oh BTW, it coincidentally fits in the standard garage. Win, win!

Right?!

 

[Ogre]

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 literally circling the piece of truck which is not visible due to camera angle. The angled portion of the truck is still there.

Front is shorter, but doesn’t end at the wheel well as this photo suggests.

Frunk is likely smaller than some imagined it. It’s a truck… bed size is king. Frunk is just a spot to tuck the chainsaw and a few small tools.

 

[cvalue13]

There’s no reason to have a longer front end as there is no ICE there. Wake up and see the advantages of less front end and, oh BTW, it coincidentally fits in the standard garage. Win, win!

im afraid this functional argument doesn't work, because it's not really true, CT has just as much front end as say an an F150.

it's just that the CT's front end is 1/2 behind/under the windshield. the stubby "appearance" is only an artifact/illusion of the design

Here's a proportional comparison of a CT and a Raptor. The point here isn't measurements, it's merely proportions.

• the red lines are nose/tail tips
• the yellow line is front door jam/pillar
• the green line is rear door jam/pillar
• purple line rear of cab (you can't quite see CTs, but it's also right there)

are there design / appearance differences that give the two very different looks? absolutely

are there underlying proportional differences in "head" vs "thorax" vs "legs" - none to speak of

so if you don't like the stubby 'look' of the CT, you're kinda just saying you don't like the design/appearance.

i love it

 

[JBee]

im afraid this functional argument doesn't work, because it's not really true, CT has just as much front end as say an an F150.

it's just that the CT's front end is 1/2 behind/under the windshield. the stubby "appearance" is only an artifact/illusion of the design

Here's a proportional comparison of a CT and a Raptor. The point here isn't measurements, it's merely proportions.

• the red lines are nose/tail tips
• the yellow line is front door jam/pillar
• the green line is rear door jam/pillar
• purple line rear of cab (you can't quite see CTs, but it's also right there)

are there design / appearance differences that give the two very different looks? absolutely

are there underlying proportional differences in "head" vs "thorax" vs "legs" - none to speak of

so if you don't like the stubby 'look' of the CT, you're kinda just saying you don't like the design/appearance.

i love it

Lol you're putting me out of a job.
Do you know how many times I've had to correct that mistake here? Your visual aids make it to easy though and avoid having pages of words to the contrary.

The biggest volumetric difference is actually the body height of the overall vehicle, but this is because of the structural pack instead of a body on frame structure.

 

[greggertruck]

And you’re onto the point! We’re having a banner day!

But the unibody is not the material difference in length between the Avalanche and F150

​

Avalanche:​

Front Leg Room - 41.30​

Second Row Leg Room - 39.10​

TOTAL: 80.4”​

​

F150 SCREW​

Front Leg Room - 43.9​

Second Row Leg Room - 43.6​

TOTAL: 87.5” ​

​

That 7” in lost cab depth is a material portion of the explanation of the Avalanche’s short length compared to an F150.

And that’s 7” measured only by leg room - actual cab depth can be even shorter compared to F150 (if eg F150 seat backs are thicker, and similar packaging differences).

At which point I remind you that short as the Avalanche is, it’s 1” longer than a hypothetical 5.5’ box CT:

• Take a ‘normal’ CT that is 227.5” long
• take 7” off its back end to shorten its 6’1” bed down to 5’6”
• you now have a hypothetical 5.5’ box CT that is 220.5” long, compared to the Avalanche at 221.3” long

Put differently: ignoring the CT’s extra 7” of bed length, the rest of the CT is 1” shorter than an even an Avalanche.

And at least 7” of that in an Avalanche is cab space. 7” meaningful in terms of leg room. That’s more than the difference between a Tacoma double cab and an a Avalanche.

TACOMA Double Cab:
Front Leg Room - 42.9
Second Row Leg Room - 32.6
TOTAL: 75.5

A Tacoma double cab has only 5” less cabin measured by legroom than an Avalanche.

That same Tacoma has 12” less cabin measure by legroom than an F150 SCREW

An Avalanche has 7” less cabin measured by legroom than an F150 SCREW



Which all is what I was driving at in my earlier posts:

If a CT is 5” shorter than an F150 SCREW, but the CT’s length includes 7” more bed than an F150 SCREW, it means that somewhere outside the bed of the CT there is 12” less length.

Maybe eg an 1” goes to the CT having a thinner tailgate than an F150 SCREW. Maybe another 1” is here and another 1” is there. And maybe 3” is spaced saved by the unibody - but that still leaves 6” unaccounted for.

Similarly, you’re right: the Avalanche has the ~same sized bed as an F150 SCREW but is 13” shorter. More than half of that shortness is made up in the cab having materially less depth.

Is that true of the CT? I don’t know.

But the photos of the interior suggests it sure could be (that back seat is small).

In any event, somewhere forward of the bed of the CT, it’s 12” shorter than an F150 SCREW

Cybertruck front from front door to bumper looks to be about 4’9” ICE F150 @ 5’4” or so. Wonder if your Lightning measures the same.

Where do you think the space is at? Above shared dim aside.

 

[cvalue13]

Where do you think the space is at?

I really don't know.

Although I don't know, it'll be no surprise to learn that I *worry* that in material part it's the CT cabin having materially less space. Not, like, Tacoma less - but Avalanche less.

not because i think it would be a huge error on Tesla's part, looking at all addressable market. plenty of people drive Tacomas or sedans that would love to have Avalanche space. maybe even some people drive modern full-sized truck limousines like the F150 who for their use cases will be happy to trade the space for other CT features.

but for a lot of full sized pickup owners, like myself, the cab room war has overtaken even the bed length war. trailering is just too easy and affordable now for the bed to have primacy.

next time you see a lawn crew, notice they'll have a trailer of gear, but 4-5 guys who have to live inside the truck 1/2 the day.

ford could tomorrow produce an F150 SCREW with a 6' bed but avalanche interior dimensions, basically trading interior room for a longer bed. there's a good market reason that they dont.

plenty of other market available though - and i don't worry for Tesla's/CT's sake, only my own preferences / use cases.

Above shared dim aside.

i cant really follow the dim info provided, to understand it's relevance.

 

[greggertruck]

I really don't know.

Although I don't know, it'll be no surprise to learn that I *worry* that in material part it's the CT cabin having materially less space. Not, like, Tacoma less - but Avalanche less.

not because i think it would be a huge error on Tesla's part, looking at all addressable market. plenty of people drive Tacomas or sedans that would love to have Avalanche space. maybe even some people drive modern full-sized truck limousines like the F150 who for their use cases will be happy to trade the space for other CT features.

but for a lot of full sized pickup owners, like myself, the cab room war has overtaken even the bed length war. trailering is just too easy and affordable now for the bed to have primacy.

next time you see a lawn crew, notice they'll have a trailer of gear, but 4-5 guys who have to live inside the truck 1/2 the day.

ford could tomorrow produce an F150 SCREW with a 6' bed but avalanche interior dimensions, basically trading interior room for a longer bed. there's a good market reason that they dont.

plenty of other market available though - and i don't worry for Tesla's/CT's sake, only my own preferences / use cases.



i cant really follow the dim info provided, to understand it's relevance.

Definitely head scratching. Again, my dims aren’t science or completely fool proof but the cab on both trucks is pretty identical. I have a SCREW and obviously Cybertruck I’m looking at. I’d imagine the differences are negligible between ICE/EV F150’s?

 

[AlDente]

I'm so used to making sacrifices what's one more ... #victimculture

 

[cvalue13]

I’d imagine the differences are negligible between ICE/EV F150’s?

they’re identical. The lightning is just the ICE F150 with a bigger center screen

Definitely head scratching. Again, my dims aren’t science or completely fool proof but the cab on both trucks is pretty identical. I have a SCREW and obviously Cybertruck I’m looking at.

Looking at?

 

[Dusty]

I bet the CT bed measurement will be a source of serious contention when people start getting their hands on it. The incline of the bed wall will be an issue because the lower wall will be touted as the "technical" length, but the "minimum" bed length towards the top, just below the rear window, will be several inches shorter.

I still think that we're going to be shocked at the CT's overall length.

 

[Roboto]

Were the size sacrifices worth it?

Thinking of daily use. I plan to keep mine outside. But I do plan to park it at public garages and those can be pretty tight spaces generally. I appreciate the extra turning radius.
Will miss having a six-seater vs five.

 

[w24i7ll365y]

When you say Frunk, all I hear is… Subwoofer compartment.

Sponsored