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

[Jhodgesatmb]

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 been thinking about the adjustment for a while. I may have to spend some toile in an uncrowded parking lot with some pylons.

Sponsored

 

[greggertruck]

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.

It’s a suuuuper exciting product because sit is so…. Weird. Probably sweet, but weird still. Can’t wait to get behind the wheel.

I know you’re very gunho full size. But my 6’ bed Tacoma will be getting a good size increase with Cybertruck. But maintaining its parkable size. I can’t wait!! Glad you saw it!!!

 

[cjcomb]

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".

It’s also possible there is an access panel for the tcover that’s unobservable; purposefully being left this way to monitor/service the rolling mechanism but as a result is getting condensate/dust slurry from environment it would not in ordinary operation be exposed to. Color me concerned but confident.

 

[FutureBoy]

Skidmark!

 

[Cyberman]

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:

Yeah, that frunk problem is always a thing when you're trying to squeeze a few extra chickens in there. If it's rated at 18, please, stay at 18 or less.

 

[CyberGus]

The third corollary of Godwin’s Law states: “as an online discussion about size grows longer, the probability of a reference to #TWSS approaches 1.”

 

[cvalue13]

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.

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

 

[cvalue13]

I know you’re very gunho full size.

I do get why you’d say that, but truth is I’m only ‘gung-ho’ interior room.

and, for the foreseeable future, it’s more than a preference in that I have three young kids in full-sized car seats that need ample room for being installed/dislodged from those seats. It’s not merely ‘can three carseats fit across,’ it’s just as much ‘while those carseats are installed, can my 6’2”/220lb self sort of still crawl back there to unbuckle them etc.’

Put differently: I don’t need a minivan because I have an F150 SCREW.

otherwise, I’d love a Tardis-like truck that is the size of a Tacoma on the outside but the size of an F150 SCREWon the inside

im willing to compromise in exchange for all the other CT upsides. burning question is how much compromise is required!

 

[Cyberman]

I do get why you’d say that, but truth is I’m only ‘gung-ho’ interior room.

and, for the foreseeable future, it’s more than a preference in that I have three young kids in full-sized car seats that need ample room for being installed/dislodged from those seats. It’s not merely ‘can three carseats fit across,’ it’s just as much ‘while those carseats are installed, can my 6’2”/220lb self sort of still crawl back there to unbuckle them etc.’

Put differently: I don’t need a minivan because I have an F150 SCREW.

otherwise, I’d love a Tardis-like truck that is the size of a Tacoma on the outside but the size of an F150 SCREWon the inside

im willing to compromise in exchange for all the other CT upsides. burning question is how much compromise is required!

Face it, you're obsessed with Cybertruck just like the rest of us here. Period.

 

[CyberGus]

Face it, you're obsessed with Cybertruck just like the rest of us here. Period.

I can quit anytime I want

 

[firsttruck]

Uhhh, Bing is a Microsoft product. The company co-founded by Bill Gates, the guy with massive short on TSLA and the person who believed even as recently as 2020 that long-range (400-500 mile ) 100% BEV class-8 semis were impossible but that hydrogen class-8 semis that has almost zero refueling infrastructure (and would be hugely expensive to create for very expensive fuel) would reign supreme.


--------------------------------

Tesla Semi vs Hydrogen (FCEV) Trucks | Future of Green Trucking?
The Tesla Semi is proving that battery electric semi trucks are a viable solution to replace much of the diesel trucks on the road today – even with current battery technology. In this video I compare the Tesla Semi to the Hydrogen powered semi truck competition to determine which is better.
Sep 12, 2023
Cleanerwatt

------




--------------------------------


In 2021, 87% of U.S. Truck Freight Tonnage Was Shipped Less than 250 Miles
August 7, 2023
Vehicle Technologies Office FOTW #1302
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicle...-87-us-truck-freight-tonnage-was-shipped-less

--------------------------------

Hydrogen tanker fire causes half-mile evacuation in Troutman ( North Carolina, USA )
April 29, 2023
WSOCTV.com News Staff
https://news.yahoo.com/hydrogen-tanker-fire-causes-half-032913730.html

--------------------------------

Evacuation order lifted after explosion on semi-truck carrying hydrogen tanks in Diamond Bar, California USA.
February 12, 2018
By Marc Cota-Robles and ABC7.com staff
https://abc7.com/hydrogen-explosion-diamond-bar-sem-truck/3068078/

--------------------------------

 

[FutureBoy]

I can quit anytime I want

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?

 

[FutureBoy]

Bill Gates, the guy with massive short on TSLA

Is the massive short still in play?

 

[JBee]

I can quit anytime I want

That's why we all joined Cybertruck-anonymous.com isn't it?

More addicts here than you think.

 

[JBee]

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

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.

So having a sloped window or a recessed lower door is functionally not necessarily worse for interior comfort due to width. Door armrests go under shoulders for example, which also leaves room for door storage underneath.

The frontal area diagram is actually the money shot as to why this is so. It's because the less frontal area the less form drag, meaning better range on a smaller pack.

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

Sponsored