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

[CyberGus]

The issue isn't your ability to quit. It's your ability to want to quit. That's where the addiction happens (from what I understand of course). If you never want to quit, you will never test the ability to do so. If somehow you get to the point where you really do want to quit, you will. Till you don't want to any more. So the real question is, how many consecutive moments (maybe measured in nano-moments) will you continue to want to quit? Or, how long does it take for the hankering to set in?

I can't quit you baby
So I'm gonna put you down for awhile
I said I can't quit you baby
I guess I gotta put you down for awhile

Sponsored

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

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

We shall henceforth call this Cyber-twerking.

 

[davelloydbrown]

not forgetting but glossing over!

because the ‘bulge’ you correctly describe also isn’t straightforward for a few reasons

For one, each side of the CT is a bit like a pyramid (itself on its side), the apex of which is at the waistline where the rear door and quarter panel meet

Viewing the CT from the front, that apex has considerable decline upwards towards the roof and downwards towards the kick plate (blue lines are perpendicular to ground)

ViewinCT from above, that apex has little decline toward the front bumper, and a bit more toward the tailgate

Which is all to return to my prior glossing over, and to put a finer point (apex?) on it:

while I agree that at one point of each side is as you say near to 70% ‘over’ the fender flares, there are considerable portions of the car (top/bottom, forward/rear) that are conversely recessed considerable inwards from those side apexes

Both in terms of overall volume but especially visually, then, the CT reads as overall narrower (and volumetrically narrower) than those two apexes and the widest portion of the flares - that widest portion of flares being the point of measure for max width = 79”

Contrast with a more traditional packaging

In cartoonish terms, the glossedover point was that (all things considered), while the CT and eg F150 may have similar max regulatory widths of ~79” it’s both visually and volumetrically a bit like saying these two shapes have similar max widths:

If talks about max width (eg “the CT is same width as F150”) are intended as a proxy for comparative volume or size, it potentially misleads.

If nothing else, visually, the CT ‘reads’ as noticeably narrower

 

[davelloydbrown]

Is the massive short still in play?

Naw- he lost big time and then for some reason told Elon about it and complained that Elon was cruel to him lol

 

[Bill W.]

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
[/QUOTE]

Have we confirmed that the CT has steer-by-wire?

 

[Cybergirl]

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.

Comparing the width of the original CT prototype with the 12" width of the license plate in this photo, the overall width of the original prototype is approximately 81.6" and the width of the vault 64".

 

[PilotPete]

I completely agree, but with the following caveat: the maximum width is only required to the shoulder height, being also the widest points of a human frame.

Well, maybe not for EVERYONE...

 

[cvalue13]

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

Have we confirmed that the CT has steer-by-wire?
[/QUOTE]

oh yeah - it's got it

it's not obvious in the video, but viewed by eyeball that U-turn required probably less than 180 degrees of yoke turn. probably ~270 degrees lock-to-lock

 

[cvalue13]

Btw can you link to those diagrams pls? I haven't seen the newer versions yet.

those diagrams are of the original prototype, so to that extent not entirely accurate of the production variant - they're from the CT design patent

they're nonetheless helpful when trying to describe the optical illusion that is the CT

 

[cvalue13]

I completely agree, but with the following caveat: the maximum width is only required to the shoulder height, being also the widest points of a human frame.

and i also agree back!

with the caveat that the max width being discussed occurs at ~the shoulder of the rear passenger, and only gets narrower toward front/rear

and again, i wasn't commenting earlier exactly about the ultimate interior packaging/ergonomic differences in width between the CT's 79" and the F150's 79" - except to the limit extent of placing a notation of caution on making 1-1 comparisons based only on that dimension.

The Rivian is a shining example of what I mean: on paper, it's 79" wide, but its interior packaging is that of a Tacoma. (As it turns out, exterior dimensions and interior packaging/ergonomics aren't closely correlated - and there's skill involved in maximizing interior volumes at a given vehicle width.)

which is all to say, I'm only nominally interested in the CT's regulatory max width dimension. I mean, if it came in at 89" that would tell me a lot, or if it came in at 72" that would tell me a lot.

But, as with the Rivian, coming in at 79" doesn't tell me a lot!

 

[PilotPete]

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 don't think so.

I drive rental cars all the time, as I'm on the road about 1/2 the month. Every car has a different turning radius, and it takes you one attempt to get used to it. After that, you adapt. Maybe not perfectly, but you realize you need more or less room than you're used to using. So it won't take more than the drive home to adapt to how tight you can turn. I've driven a 4WS car, you don't really notice it beyond thinking "Wow, can't believe how tight that U turn was."

As for the "booty swinging", the CT will NOT swing out. The steering angle of the rear is less than the front. So it still trails in, just like 2WS, just not as much. It would need a greater angle to the front for it to step out. The exaggerated example is a fork lift, aircraft tug, or something else with rear wheel steering. Because the rear angle exceeds the front, it steps out. At the equal point, the rear would just continue in the same tracks as the front until you reached a point where the front moved out of a straight line, and then follow on the same footprints. The CT just won't want to step inside the tracks as much, and so a benefit is gained without enlarging the radius.

The 747 has 10 wheel steering. There is one nosegear strut (2 wheels) then as you move back two main gear trucks, (4 wheels each) that are fixed, and then slightly aft of those, are the aft main gear trucks (4 wheels each) that turn opposite to the steerable nose wheels. Makes the big boy a lot more maneuverable. And if you count them all, a 747 is "an 18 wheeler".

 

[JBee]

Well, maybe not for EVERYONE...

I said frame, soft things are more conforming than bones so there's a bit more flexibility.

But in saying that aircraft seats seem to get smaller everytime I fly. Maybe I could swap with you next time? At least you get a window seat every time!

Actually as a pilot do they ask you to stay under a certain weight, you know to save fuel? Would sort of make sense if they did given the miles pilots clock up.

 

[JBee]

I don't think so.

I drive rental cars all the time, as I'm on the road about 1/2 the month. Every car has a different turning radius, and it takes you one attempt to get used to it. After that, you adapt. Maybe not perfectly, but you realize you need more or less room than you're used to using. So it won't take more than the drive home to adapt to how tight you can turn. I've driven a 4WS car, you don't really notice it beyond thinking "Wow, can't believe how tight that U turn was."

As for the "booty swinging", the CT will NOT swing out. The steering angle of the rear is less than the front. So it still trails in, just like 2WS, just not as much. It would need a greater angle to the front for it to step out. The exaggerated example is a fork lift, aircraft tug, or something else with rear wheel steering. Because the rear angle exceeds the front, it steps out. At the equal point, the rear would just continue in the same tracks as the front until you reached a point where the front moved out of a straight line, and then follow on the same footprints. The CT just won't want to step inside the tracks as much, and so a benefit is gained without enlarging the radius.

The 747 has 10 wheel steering. There is one nosegear strut (2 wheels) then as you move back two main gear trucks, (4 wheels each) that are fixed, and then slightly aft of those, are the aft main gear trucks (4 wheels each) that turn opposite to the steerable nose wheels. Makes the big boy a lot more maneuverable. And if you count them all, a 747 is "an 18 wheeler".

I never knew the 747 had rear wheel steering. Do any of the other larger planes have that as well?

 

[PilotPete]

I never knew the 747 had rear wheel steering. Do any of the other larger planes have that as well?

A few military large aircraft do. The only thing else with staggered trucks on the mains is the A380. Airbus chose to NOT implement rear wheel steering for whatever reason. This has caused some of the taxi alleys to get a bit "tight" for the plane. But the truth is, any swept wing aircraft, as long as the wingtips are aft of the wheels, "grows" in width during a tight turn. What they mean is, if your wingtip is close to an object as you start a turn, the wingtip will get closer to the object (and potentially hit it) as you turn. The tighter the turn, the more the wing "grows". The more the wing is swept back and the further behind the mains, the more it grows. So it either fits, or it don't. Every flight manual has the needed taxi widths for 90 and 180 degree turns.

As for our weight, we all weigh the same. And so does the rest of the public! I know Japan Air and I think Korean air have a BMI limitation. But only the military cares past that. The reason we all weigh the same is, "Average passenger weights" are used on larger aircraft. There are accepted and measured "average weights" that are used for weight calculations. (As well as average luggage weights, which is why they penalize you for going over 50 lbs) Taking into account kids, skinny people, average people, and larger than average people, an average per passenger is taken. So all you do is multiply the number of pax by the avg and you get you pax weights. There are summer weights, and winter weights, with winter being just a touch more. Same goes for the flight crew. Our average weight is part of the BOW, or Basic Operating Weight, which contains a fully crewed and stocked airplane. So we can weigh whatever. Now, if you've eaten airline food, and you realize they are actually trying to impress you, and then think they don't care about impressing the crew, but rather limiting the expenses, you can imagine how bad that tastes. So for most it's hard to gain while eating crew meals. When I'm doing flight testing of any kind, we bring our own. That can get dangerous! We often get a catering company or local restaurant to set us up. And some of those meals are anything but "light and low fat".

 

[RVAC]

One other thing to keep in mind is how far inset the window is relative to the exterior of the door panel.

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.

Would also avoid having to manufacture both a full size and mid size CT, something I suspect Tesla could be quite keen on.

Comparing the width of the original CT prototype with the 12" width of the license plate in this photo, the overall width of the original prototype is approximately 81.6" and the width of the vault 64".

Width of the original prototype was 84" as stated by Elon.

Sponsored