FutureBoy

Well-known member
First Name
Reginald
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Threads
213
Messages
3,539
Reaction score
6,033
Location
Kirkland WA USA
Vehicles
Toyota Sienna
Occupation
Financial Advisor
Country flag
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".
So if I hear you correctly, if I want to loose weight, there are 2 ways to go about it. 1: just get off my butt and loose some weight, 2: get everyone else to lose weight so that the average numbers come down. Hmmm... Which will be harder, motivating myself, or myself motivating a ton of others.
Sponsored

 

Cybergirl

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Threads
21
Messages
496
Reaction score
1,482
Location
Illinois and Arizona
Vehicles
Tesla Model Y LR, Model Y SR, Cybertruck AWD FS
Country flag
One other thing to keep in mind is how far inset the window is relative to the exterior of the door panel.

window.png




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



Width of the original prototype was 84" as stated by Elon.
That may be, but this analysis shows it was less at the rear flares.
 
OP
OP
cvalue13

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,147
Reaction score
13,759
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
I don't think so.
I forget: do you drive full sized trucks often?

because to be clear, I was speaking of the combination of 4WS + progressive steer-by-wire.

I wasn't suggesting at all that it will be insurmountable.

But after 30 years of driving full-sized trucks, there are certain maneuvers - particularly at low speed - that will be needing adaptation against a lot of muscle memory.


As for the "booty swinging", the CT will NOT swing out.
On one hand, I defer to your expertise, but am left confused.

Because on the other hand, I've seen videos of the CT making a tight turn in low speed scenarios, and the booty does swing out in a way that is noticeably different from a full-sized truck. See e.g., 0:07-0:12 in the video below.





















Meanwhile, as mentioned, i was referring to the combo of 4WS seen above together with progressive steer-by-wire:

Here's an experienced driver trying Lexus's version for the first time (video queued to relevant bit), and even through the screen I *get* the strangeness of it





at the end of the day, maybe I'm only speaking on behalf of - not pilots like yourself, used to these things - but instead folks used to typical low-speed maneuvering in long-wheelbase trucks

or maybe I'm just all wrong, and nothing will need re-writing 30 years of muscle memory
 
OP
OP
cvalue13

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,147
Reaction score
13,759
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
That may be, but this analysis shows it was less at the rear flares.
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".
CT Tail Dimensions.jpg

At the level of measurement 'resolution' you're discussing (e.g., 81.6" vs 84" - or about 2.5%), I think your chosen photo isn't optimal for any certainty.

Those fender flare points are a couple of feet further away from the camera than is the license plate, which means depending on the type of lens used, the distance between lens and object, etc., the flare points can 'appear' nearer to one another in 2D than they are in 3D reality.

a 2.5% error from perspective distortion can't be discounted
 

CactusPilot

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2022
Threads
8
Messages
152
Reaction score
365
Location
Arizona
Vehicles
Tesla Model 3 Performance, and Tesla Model Y
Occupation
Airline Pilot
Country flag


Cybergirl

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Threads
21
Messages
496
Reaction score
1,482
Location
Illinois and Arizona
Vehicles
Tesla Model Y LR, Model Y SR, Cybertruck AWD FS
Country flag
At the level of measurement 'resolution' you're discussing (e.g., 81.6" vs 84" - or about 2.5%), I think your chosen photo isn't optimal for any certainty.

Those fender flare points are a couple of feet further away from the camera than is the license plate, which means depending on the type of lens used, the distance between lens and object, etc., the flare points can 'appear' nearer to one another in 2D than they are in 3D reality.

a 2.5% error from perspective distortion can't be discounted
The photo was clipped from a video of CT entering the Vegas tunnel from a fair distance away.
Tesla Cybertruck Spotted: CyberTruck U-Turns (and F-150 comparison). Rear wheel steering in action Screenshot 2023-09-13 at 2.37.09 PM
 

RVAC

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
796
Reaction score
1,205
Location
-
Vehicles
-
That may be, but this analysis shows it was less at the rear flares.
I'm the first to take any of his forward looking statements with a healthy dose of skepticism but if he explicitly states the prototype at the unveil was 84" wide I'm inclined to take his word for it.
 

Cybergirl

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Threads
21
Messages
496
Reaction score
1,482
Location
Illinois and Arizona
Vehicles
Tesla Model Y LR, Model Y SR, Cybertruck AWD FS
Country flag
I'm the first to take any of his forward looking statements with a healthy dose of skepticism but if he explicitly states the prototype at the unveil was 84" wide I'm inclined to take his word for it.
I am too, but when there's visual evidence to the contrary, it makes sense to question. Let's be realistic, Tesla hasn't been completely transparent about CT specs.
 

PilotPete

Well-known member
First Name
Pete
Joined
May 8, 2023
Threads
12
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
3,953
Vehicles
Porsche, BMW, M3LR on order
Occupation
Chief Pilot
Country flag
I forget: do you drive full sized trucks often?
because to be clear, I was speaking of the combination of 4WS + progressive steer-by-wire.

I wasn't suggesting at all that it will be insurmountable.

But after 30 years of driving full-sized trucks, there are certain maneuvers - particularly at low speed - that will be needing adaptation against a lot of muscle memory.

On one hand, I defer to your expertise, but am left confused.

Because on the other hand, I've seen videos of the CT making a tight turn in low speed scenarios, and the booty does swing out in a way that is noticeably different from a full-sized truck. See e.g., 0:07-0:12 in the video below.

Meanwhile, as mentioned, i was referring to the combo of 4WS seen above together with progressive steer-by-wire:

Here's an experienced driver trying Lexus's version for the first time (video queued to relevant bit), and even through the screen I *get* the strangeness of it

at the end of the day, maybe I'm only speaking on behalf of - not pilots like yourself, used to these things - but instead folks used to typical low-speed maneuvering in long-wheelbase trucks
or maybe I'm just all wrong, and nothing will need re-writing 30 years of muscle memory
C'mon C,

I don't drive full size truck often and you know that. I've said 5 or 6 times I'm not a full time truck guy. Heck, it says what I drive on my profile. Please don't pretend you forgot.

So, you may have a point that there are maneuvers I don't think about. And I didn't get that progressive steering was the part of it to which you were referring. So, I'll concede the point that it may take a little getting used to it. My point was that the RWS wasn't going to cause the rear end to track outside the front track. Tried to make that clear, but maybe I didn't. I think I make some things clear between my wife and I, and then I find out I didn't. Oh well.

Just like everything else on this vehicle, we're going to have to wait and see. As most everything here is adapted through software, it's all going to depend on how well the software is written, tested, adapted, and implemented. It may feel perfectly natural. It may feel like you are driving for the first time ever. It may feel like you've forgotten how to drive. I'll admit that I'm making an assumption based on how natural their 3/Y software feels to me, that's how the steering, braking, and all the other new stuff will be implemented.

As an example, last year we drove a Volvo BEV, a Polestar BEV, and a few others. My wife said she felt nauseous after driving the Volvo and the Polecat because of the way they had implemented the acceleration vs the pedal movement. And honestly, I felt a bit queasy after she drove it too, and I turned down the chance to drive. But the three times she has driven a 3 or Y, she has never had a bad experience or felt that the she was driving the computer and not the car. So, I am ASSuming that Tesla will get the CT right in the same way.
 

RVAC

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
796
Reaction score
1,205
Location
-
Vehicles
-
I am too, but when there's visual evidence to the contrary, it makes sense to question. Let's be realistic, Tesla hasn't been completely transparent about CT specs.
I appreciate the pixel peeping estimates as much as anyone else but there's a far higher likelihood of those being off than EM, one can't even say it could be a typo on his part because it checks out with the rest of the tweet. Not to mention the Mk1 eyeball test does suggest it being 84" wide, both when looking at the exterior and, more importantly, when comparing it to the interior of the Beta protos and RCs. We also know the Alpha protos were wider than 80" due to them having three amber marker lights, yet the photos of their interior showed them to be narrower than the OG, further suggesting it could not have been ~82-81".
 


Cybergirl

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Threads
21
Messages
496
Reaction score
1,482
Location
Illinois and Arizona
Vehicles
Tesla Model Y LR, Model Y SR, Cybertruck AWD FS
Country flag
I appreciate the pixel peeping estimates as much as anyone else but there's a far higher likelihood of those being off than EM, one can't even say it could be a typo on his part because it checks out with the rest of the tweet. Not to mention the Mk1 eyeball test does suggest it being 84" wide, both when looking at the exterior and, more importantly, when comparing it to the interiors of the Beta protos and RCs. We also know the Alpha protos were wider than 80" due to them having three amber marker lights, yet the photos of their interior showed them to be narrower than the OG, further suggesting it could not have been ~82-81".
You may be right, but you're arguing at a subjective level. My "pixel peeping" can't be that easily dismissed. There are other accounts (e.g., Wikipedia) that say the original prototype is 79.8" wide. It doesn't really matter, but If I get chance to see the first one displayed at Peterson or so other museum, I'll bring a measuring tape and find out the truth.
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
4,800
Reaction score
6,185
Location
Australia
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
. Professional Hobbyist
Country flag
You may be right, but you're arguing at a subjective level. My "pixel peeping" can't be that easily dismissed. There are other accounts (e.g., Wikipedia) that say the original prototype is 79.8" wide. It doesn't really matter, but If I get chance to see the first one displayed at Peterson or so other museum, I'll bring a measuring tape and find out the truth.
You can't get close enough to touch the CT at the Peterson and laser tape measure doesn’t work on stainless very well. Let alone you have to bounce it off something sticking out at the edge to measure between points. I tried it in person. :(
 
OP
OP
cvalue13

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,147
Reaction score
13,759
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
There are other accounts (e.g., Wikipedia) that say the original prototype is 79.8" wide.
that’s a confusion between the on-stage prototype (which was massive) and the on-screen stats that were given for the eventual production dimensions - which were at that time ~identical to the F150 SCREW,

Really neither here no there, but: regardless of pixels or Musk tweets, this photo/video is personally sufficient to know the on-stage prototype was significantly larger than an F150😅

Tesla Cybertruck Spotted: CyberTruck U-Turns (and F-150 comparison). Rear wheel steering in action 52E0FE02-5060-4004-A905-F5E7E189873C
 
OP
OP
cvalue13

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,147
Reaction score
13,759
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
C'mon C,

I don't drive full size truck often and you know that. I've said 5 or 6 times I'm not a full time truck guy. Heck, it says what I drive on my profile. Please don't pretend you forgot.
Honest, while I do remember several references to the Porsche, I couldn’t remember if you separately had some history with trucks - though now on second thought, it may have been a vague memory of you having lots of vehicle experience, but now I remember those are aeroplane-hicles.


My point was that the RWS wasn't going to cause the rear end to track outside the front track.
that might be where we cross-wired

I don’t think the rear wheels will track outside the front track

I meant instead, essentially, that in a tight low speed turn the rear wheels will be nearly IN the front track at all (trucks are usually dragging their rear inside the front track) - and that by rear being ~in the front track, the 2+ feet of tail behind the rear wheels will swing out in a way that doesn’t happen with standard steering.

Could be I’m wrong and it’s not that exaggerated.

but thinking in particular of pulling in/out of parking spaces. Backing into spaces is the way to go as everyone knows (right 🕵️‍♂️?), because you essentially switch to rear-wheel steering to get the tailgate end past the apex of the turn - for both pulling in and out. otherwise, before pulling in you have to swing way out so that the truck can pull the rear end in line (and avoid hitting the car parked nearby toward the rear axel of the truck) - and vice versa on way out.

probably calls for some graphic I don’t have

in any event, here’s a cool vid from TFLT on a 4WS system installed in an F150. Coincidentally (?) the video is from 2019 around the time of the CT unveil.

a change of subject, but the vid has a cool segment on how theoretically a truck with rear steer could achieve a higher towing weight rating than an identical truck without 4WS - given how the weight maxes are calculated in part on trailer stability.



makes me wonder if Tesla sourced this system for the CT, which at the time was in a bunch of SUVs from BMW, Lamborghini, etc.
Sponsored

 
 




Top