Spotted: CyberTruck U-Turns (and F-150 comparison). Rear wheel steering in action

[cvalue13]

Two different u-turns in this video.

In the first, the driver makes a tight u-turn. No way know for sure if he’s fully locked out in this turn, but the geometry of the front tires suggests he’s real close.

In the second, the driver makes a more loose u-turn. In the approach, he starts far right in the left lane (almost to center line), swings out wider, and in the return nearly touches the rightmost shoulder line.

For comparison, I took this same u-turn in my F150 SCREW, and it was ~identical to the second CT u-turn video.

So, these two u-turn videos gives some sense of how much tighter the CT can turn (in the first vid) compared to an F150 SCREW (in the 2nd vid).

A few other observations:

check rear tire

no knock to the CT as these are just RC units not dialed in, but whew these hoods seem to be giving them hell for now:

Lastly, the “skid mark” this dirty line that forms on the vault covers (presumably when the cover is stored/rolled, this portion is somehow exposed to the elements):

the skid mark is pretty unsightly in person, and isn’t a fluke of this build unit - they all get it:

Sponsored

 

[greggertruck]

Sweet!

I thought you were posting you F150 also making the same u turn to compare to?

 

[59sjordan]

Wow! I never noticed the skid mark before! Yikes!

 

[cvalue13]

Sweet!

I thought you were posting you F150 also making the same u turn to compare to?

No cameraman available

But I drove my F150 in the same u-turn (several times), and suppose you’ll have to take my word it was ~identical to the second vid (of CT from rear)**

** a caveat, though: the CT’s rear steer swings the booty out in a way unfamiliar to any pickup driver. So it doesn’t have to ‘nose-out’ as far to avoid dragging the booty over the median.


Between that unusual booty-swinging and the CT’s steer-by-wire, it’ll be a bit of an adjustment to learn to drive it

 

[greggertruck]

No cameraman available

But I drove my F150 in the same u-turn (several times), and suppose you’ll have to take my word it was ~identical to the second vid (of CT from rear)**

** a caveat, though: the CT’s rear steer swings the booty out in a way unfamiliar to any pickup driver. So it doesn’t have to ‘nose-out’ as far to avoid dragging the booty over the median.


Between that unusual booty-swinging and the CT’s steer-by-wire, it’ll be a bit of an adjustment to learn to drive it

Dig it.. It's like a pallet jack I guess. It pivots not he back wheels rather than leads entirely with he front??

Now.. one more time...

Ryan...ronald...roger...reagan....rex, what did you think of Cybertruck now that you've seen it in person?!

 

[Diehard]

no knock to the CT as these are just RC units not dialed in, but whew these hoods seem to be giving them hell for now:

Maybe battery is out of juice (fruck can not complete the closing/locking)

‘’Edit: I wonder if the tape on the Frunk is because locking mechanism still needs some refinement

 

[JBee]

No cameraman available

But I drove my F150 in the same u-turn (several times), and suppose you’ll have to take my word it was ~identical to the second vid (of CT from rear)**

** a caveat, though: the CT’s rear steer swings the booty out in a way unfamiliar to any pickup driver. So it doesn’t have to ‘nose-out’ as far to avoid dragging the booty over the median.


Between that unusual booty-swinging and the CT’s steer-by-wire, it’ll be a bit of an adjustment to learn to drive it

I have a 4WS 9 ton telehandler/tractor and you get used to the steering really quick. Even in crab mode you get a feel for it inside a few minutes, but when you hit the end of the steering lock it should really also start to yaw the vehicle as well so you have directional control still in crab mode. All doable in software seeing RWS will most likely be DBW.

In the telehandler both axles have the same steering angle though, unlike the CT that steers less in the back. That means that the axis of rotation for yaw is in the middle of the vehicle. For highway use in 2WS mode it's inbetween the rear wheels and makes it much less sensitive for towing up to 28tons.

In the case of the CT though the yaw axis position is likely to range from the front of the bed area in 4WS, to inbetween rear wheels in 2WS and then somewhere about 10-16ft off the back of the truck in crab mode. Having the center of rotation axis so far back in crab steering mode is what will give the CT best in class towing stability, and avoid nearly all steering induced trailer sway. Even without any active electronic countermeasures.

Overall, you will experience the shift in yaw axis position as one seamless consistent change that is proportional with steering input and the current speed. At freeway speeds it will be mostly in crab mode with a little yaw mixed in for lane changes and slight corners with little steering input, and then will change to opposite 4WS mode with more steering input for offramps and curvy roads and intersections etc.

I hope they also throw in some active corning code, that lets the rear wheels counter drift for loose surfaces and snow. That together with torque vectoring would be epic.

 

[Gurule92]

They open the vaults a lot?

 

[cvalue13]

what did you think of Cybertruck now that you've seen it in person?!

Still processing a bit. I’ve now spent quite a bit of time around several of them, and they’re hard to … absorb. Especially these RCs.

• on one hand, it’s unlike anything else and that is refreshing. And notionally, I continue to love the promise of the design (again, I collect 70’s Italian modern design - how can I not).

• but on the other hand, in IRL, these RC units are in pretty rough shape aesthetically. even when recently washed the SS panels are damaged, fingerprinted, and still… unkempt. (The CT in the first u-turn had JUST left the wash bay, and still has the skid mark, etc.).

to be clear, these RC units are not fully dialed in builds, and altogether aren’t intended to be the CT’s best foot forward - so my observations above aren’t a critique of the CT, only a fact of what CTs are being spotted at this stage.

This all makes it a bit tough to give the CT it’s full due. I’m excited to see a clean, dialed-in, production version.





all that said, and setting aside the general aesthetics, one main take-away is about the size and proportions.

The CT is basically the size of a Chevy Avalanche, except a touch longer, and a touch more narrow.*** Noticeably smaller in presence and external dimensions than a modern full-sized pickup.

And that’s a good thing, assuming Tesla manages to get Avalanche-like interior dimensions out of it. Imagine a truck with the maneuverability of a Tacoma, in just a slightly larger footprint, but with the interior space of an Avalanche (which is less than a F150 SCREW, but still sizeable) plus a Frunk, 4WS, steer-by-wire, adjustable air suspension, F-series like payload/towing capabilities, and faster than is reasonable.

That is a Goldilocks offering. It won’t make everyone happy, but a real sweet spot for market share. For all those features, folks reluctant to go full-sized will up-size to this. For all those features, folks reluctant to go mid-sized will down-size to this.


What’s left for me, the big questions, are all about interior packaging and experience. For that, naked stats won’t be much help - the packaging is so different that 1-1 measurement comparisons won’t be very informative. Will instead need fair and balanced reviews of interior experience - especially for that very odd back seat (for those of us that care).



*** As for width, here’s what to keep in mind. Seems now generally uncontroversial that the CT width is ~79”. But it’s important to remember that those regulatory width measurements include the fender flares. That means the CT’s width at the stainless, metal-to-metal, is ~79” minus the combined width of the flares widest points. An F150/Avalanche is also ~79” wide, but absent fender flares, so that’s ~79” metal-to-metal. Visually, it’s noticeable.

 

[cvalue13]

They open the vaults a lot?

seems like we don’t see them open around GFTX too often. None I saw personally were open.

 

[CyberGus]

…the “skid mark” is this dirty line that forms on the vault covers (presumably when the cover is stored/rolled, this portion is somehow exposed to the elements):

Now I can’t un-see it

Half the cover is behind the seats, half is rolled up, and the mark is probably the exposed potion of the roll facing downward.

First the fingerprints, and now this

omg

 

[wtibbit]

... the mark is probably the exposed potion of the roll facing downward.

I think you're right, Gus.

Or facing/exposed, somehow, to a dirtier environment than the rest of the cover.

I hope this is one of those things that they'll discover in "Engineering Prototype Phase" and fix before the "Initial Production Phase".

 

[JBee]

Still processing a bit. I’ve now spent quite a bit of time around several of them, and they’re hard to … absorb. Especially these RCs.

• on one hand, it’s unlike anything else and that is refreshing. And notionally, I continue to love the promise of the design (again, I collect 70’s Italian modern design - how can I not).

• but on the other hand, in IRL, these RC units are in pretty rough shape aesthetically. even when recently washed the SS panels are damaged, fingerprinted, and still… unkempt. (The CT in the first u-turn had JUST left the wash bay, and still has the skid mark, etc.).

to be clear, these RC units are not fully dialed in builds, and altogether aren’t intended to be the CT’s best foot forward - so my observations above aren’t a critique of the CT, only a fact of what CTs are being spotted at this stage.

This all makes it a bit tough to give the CT it’s full due. I’m excited to see a clean, dialed-in, production version.





all that said, and setting aside the general aesthetics, one main take-away is about the size and proportions.

The CT is basically the size of a Chevy Avalanche, except a touch longer, and a touch more narrow.*** Noticeably smaller in presence and external dimensions than a modern full-sized pickup.

And that’s a good thing, assuming Tesla manages to get Avalanche-like interior dimensions out of it. Imagine a truck with the maneuverability of a Tacoma, in just a slightly larger footprint, but with the interior space of an Avalanche (which is less than a F150 SCREW, but still sizeable) plus a Frunk, 4WS, steer-by-wire, adjustable air suspension, F-series like payload/towing capabilities, and faster than is reasonable.

That is a Goldilocks offering. It won’t make everyone happy, but a real sweet spot for market share. For all those features, folks reluctant to go full-sized will up-size to this. For all those features, folks reluctant to go mid-sized will down-size to this.


What’s left for me, the big questions, are all about interior packaging and experience. For that, naked stats won’t be much help - the packaging is so different that 1-1 measurement comparisons won’t be very informative. Will instead need fair and balanced reviews of interior experience - especially for that very odd back seat (for those of us that care).



*** As for width, here’s what to keep in mind. Seems now generally uncontroversial that the CT width is ~79”. But it’s important to remember that those regulatory width measurements include the fender flares. That means the CT’s width at the stainless, metal-to-metal, is ~79” minus the combined width of the flares widest points. An F150/Avalanche is also ~79” wide, but absent fender flares, so that’s ~79” metal-to-metal. Visually, it’s noticeable.

Don't forget though that about 70% of what width which is lost on the wheel flares is gained on the side curvature that bulges to max at the center cabin column.

So you have most of that width available in the cab like that, and the flares only subtract around 20-30%. It might also be just over 79" wide to just stay under the 80", so each cm helps here as well.

Btw the smaller width also has an important off-road aspect, in that most trials are by smaller vehicle with a smaller track, especially here in Oz, meaning you can still fit down them with a bigger truck and 4WS will help stay in the shorter wheel base tracks others make.

 

[Gurule92]

seems like we don’t see them open around GFTX too often. None I saw personally were open.

Odd.

 

[initintel]

Still processing a bit. I’ve now spent quite a bit of time around several of them, and they’re hard to … absorb. Especially these RCs.

• on one hand, it’s unlike anything else and that is refreshing. And notionally, I continue to love the promise of the design (again, I collect 70’s Italian modern design - how can I not).

• but on the other hand, in IRL, these RC units are in pretty rough shape aesthetically. even when recently washed the SS panels are damaged, fingerprinted, and still… unkempt. (The CT in the first u-turn had JUST left the wash bay, and still has the skid mark, etc.).

to be clear, these RC units are not fully dialed in builds, and altogether aren’t intended to be the CT’s best foot forward - so my observations above aren’t a critique of the CT, only a fact of what CTs are being spotted at this stage.

This all makes it a bit tough to give the CT it’s full due. I’m excited to see a clean, dialed-in, production version.





all that said, and setting aside the general aesthetics, one main take-away is about the size and proportions.

The CT is basically the size of a Chevy Avalanche, except a touch longer, and a touch more narrow.*** Noticeably smaller in presence and external dimensions than a modern full-sized pickup.

And that’s a good thing, assuming Tesla manages to get Avalanche-like interior dimensions out of it. Imagine a truck with the maneuverability of a Tacoma, in just a slightly larger footprint, but with the interior space of an Avalanche (which is less than a F150 SCREW, but still sizeable) plus a Frunk, 4WS, steer-by-wire, adjustable air suspension, F-series like payload/towing capabilities, and faster than is reasonable.

That is a Goldilocks offering. It won’t make everyone happy, but a real sweet spot for market share. For all those features, folks reluctant to go full-sized will up-size to this. For all those features, folks reluctant to go mid-sized will down-size to this.


What’s left for me, the big questions, are all about interior packaging and experience. For that, naked stats won’t be much help - the packaging is so different that 1-1 measurement comparisons won’t be very informative. Will instead need fair and balanced reviews of interior experience - especially for that very odd back seat (for those of us that care).



*** As for width, here’s what to keep in mind. Seems now generally uncontroversial that the CT width is ~79”. But it’s important to remember that those regulatory width measurements include the fender flares. That means the CT’s width at the stainless, metal-to-metal, is ~79” minus the combined width of the flares widest points. An F150/Avalanche is also ~79” wide, but absent fender flares, so that’s ~79” metal-to-metal. Visually, it’s noticeable.

According to bing, its not full size.. its medium

Sponsored