The Beta CT dimensions are now perfection

[TBONO]

I’m really surprised to see so much speculation that the cybertruck may not be a full-size truck, and potentially more of a midsize or a midsize plus a.k.a. Rivian competitor.

That does not align with the design premise of the truck ever since its first mention, and launch where controversial video, showing it in a tug-of-war against an F150, which is the stated benchmark.

they show a four wheel quad, rolling out of the bed on the prototype… Which cannot be done with a midsize

It’s also known that ram TRX was used at Tesla, Fremont for performance benchmark testing.

Why deal with the expense of four wheel steering if it is not a full-size truck? If it was a midsize, would not make a final design cut.

unless there’s some hard numbers to share, I think there’s too much worry in this regard. This will definitely be a full-size truck.

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

EM also specifically commented on how the CT compared to the F150 on the release night.

It's not mid size, it's just people who are worried about missing a few inches in bed size.

 

[cvalue13]

EM also specifically commented on how the CT compared to the F150 on the release night.

It's not mid size, it's just people who are worried about missing a few inches in bed size.

This isn’t quite true or fair.

While forever caveated that a “Pre-Production Beta” - even one being showcased at Investor Day - could either (A) still be changed, or (B) represent only one of several optional configurations, it is nonetheless true that:

• many things have changed, and been confirmed as changed by EM or otherwise, in the design since the 2019 release (e.g., no door handles, BAW, etc.)

• so, we already know concretely that the 2019 release day truck is not an accurate reflection of the details, and so it remains reasonable to think more details can or will change before production - and unreasonable for people to keep insisting ‘if it wasn’t like that on release day, it won’t be like that in production’​

• giving Tesla credit for their all-things-considered engineering chops, it’s been nearly 4 years since the 2019 release, in which period surely many things have been learned or optimized

• so, for every item of change we see and react “Tesla couldn’t have been so stupid as to change that…” we’ve not yet heard their rationale; we could learn that an apparent downside in one metric has outsized upside on other metrics - eg “yeah we shrank by 5%, because turns out due to physics we could increase range by 20%”​

• With respect to the “pre-production beta” on display at investor day - not exactly a casual/accidental glimpse - any observed changes are telling of at least directionally possible changes at the production level, and several such changes are visible independent of what a Tesla employee reported

• unlike the 2019 release prototype or any other we’ve seen, the bed area has wheel wells (which means that even if the truck’s exterior dimensions remain the same, the bed will by necessity have a narrower width than before)​

• unlike the 2019 release prototype or any other we’ve seen, there is absolutely not at 6th jump seat, and it is instead a 5 seat configuration (which suggests that either the front driver/passenger seat are materially larger, or instead the interior shoulder room decreased - you be the judge of likelihood here)​

• [INSERT ANY NUMBER OF MATERIAL/INTERESTING OBSERVABLE DIFFERENCES IN THE INVESTOR DAY PROTOTYPE - OF WHICH THERE ARE SEVERAL]​

• Notably, several of the observable differences in the investor day day prototype are directionally consistent with the reported statements from the Tesla employee assigned to man the truck (e.g., the existence of wheel wells is consistent with a reduction in useable bed size; that it’s a 5-seater)

• So, it ignores plausibility to entirely dismiss the employee’s statements that are consistent with the observable differences - what’s left is to say instead merely “ perhaps he was rounding down/speaking loosely, or describing only one optional configuration”​

In all, the fundamental and reasonable point on some people’s minds is this: we’ve never before seen any prototype, much less a late stage “pre-production beta” being officially socialized with investors, that had a single indices of having:

• wheel wells (so reducing bed floor area)​

• no middle/jump seat (so suggesting possible reduction in interior dimensions)​

Which is either directionally consistent with the Tesla employee’s statements (the bed will be smaller with wheel wells than without), or exactly consistent with the employee’s statements (there is no 6th seat).

Venturing now away from the above views I think everyone being reasonable should share jointly, and instead into the admitted realm of personal opinion:

Photos of the investor day prototype’s interior, together with the employee’s other comments, have me reasonably worried that the interior/cargo dimensions of the truck will be materially less than previous photos/info had led me to hope for. It’s merely opinion, but I’ve driven a SuperCrew F150 for most of 30 years, and the photos of the investor day beta do not square with the CT having full-sized truck interior dimensions.

Reasonable people can disagree, and that’s the stuff of forum fodder. But to suggest all the above boils down to “people who are worried about missing a few inches in bed size” isn’t quite true or fair.

 

[NJturtlePower]

the real question above this is : will the cybertruck be for the worldwide market ? If yes, it should be a mid size truck, if it’s only for north america, tesla should keep the full size.

Wasn't it stated a few times already that what was unveiled as the Cybertruck IS currently only for the US market?

Realistically they (Tesla) have year and years worth of production backlog just here in the US and will have no additional capacity for international deliveries anyways.

 

[Miralf]

Wasn't it stated a few times already that what was unveiled as the Cybertruck IS currently only for the US market?

Realistically they (Tesla) have year and years worth of production backlog just here in the US and will have no additional capacity for international deliveries anyways.

elon wants tesla to be the king of the world of electric cars. Tesla soon have gigafactories all around the world with billion of potential clients. And they will strictly sell one of their best products only in one country ?

 

[JBee]

This isn’t quite true or fair.

While forever caveated that a “Pre-Production Beta” - even one being showcased at Investor Day - could either (A) still be changed, or (B) represent only one of several optional configurations, it is nonetheless true that:

• many things have changed, and been confirmed as changed by EM or otherwise, in the design since the 2019 release (e.g., no door handles, BAW, etc.)

​

• so, we already know concretely that the 2019 release day truck is not an accurate reflection of the details, and so it remains reasonable to think more details can or will change before production - and unreasonable for people to keep insisting ‘if it wasn’t like that on release day, it won’t be like that in production’​

• giving Tesla credit for their all-things-considered engineering chops, it’s been nearly 4 years since the 2019 release, in which period surely many things have been learned or optimized

​

• so, for every item of change we see and react “Tesla couldn’t have been so stupid as to change that…” we’ve not yet heard their rationale; we could learn that an apparent downside in one metric has outsized upside on other metrics - eg “yeah we shrank by 5%, because turns out due to physics we could increase range by 20%”​

• With respect to the “pre-production beta” on display at investor day - not exactly a casual/accidental glimpse - any observed changes are telling of at least directionally possible changes at the production level, and several such changes are visible independent of what a Tesla employee reported

​

• unlike the 2019 release prototype or any other we’ve seen, the bed area has wheel wells (which means that even if the truck’s exterior dimensions remain the same, the bed will by necessity have a narrower width than before)​

​

• unlike the 2019 release prototype or any other we’ve seen, there is absolutely not at 6th jump seat, and it is instead a 5 seat configuration (which suggests that either the front driver/passenger seat are materially larger, or instead the interior shoulder room decreased - you be the judge of likelihood here)​

​

• [INSERT ANY NUMBER OF MATERIAL/INTERESTING OBSERVABLE DIFFERENCES IN THE INVESTOR DAY PROTOTYPE - OF WHICH THERE ARE SEVERAL]​

• Notably, several of the observable differences in the investor day day prototype are directionally consistent with the reported statements from the Tesla employee assigned to man the truck (e.g., the existence of wheel wells is consistent with a reduction in useable bed size; that it’s a 5-seater)

​

• So, it ignores plausibility to entirely dismiss the employee’s statements that are consistent with the observable differences - what’s left is to say instead merely “ perhaps he was rounding down/speaking loosely, or describing only one optional configuration”​

In all, the fundamental and reasonable point on some people’s minds is this: we’ve never before seen any prototype, much less a late stage “pre-production beta” being officially socialized with investors, that had a single indices of having:

​

• wheel wells (so reducing bed floor area)​

• no middle/jump seat (so suggesting possible reduction in interior dimensions)​

Which is either directionally consistent with the Tesla employee’s statements (the bed will be smaller with wheel wells than without), or exactly consistent with the employee’s statements (there is no 6th seat).

Venturing now away from the above views I think everyone being reasonable should share jointly, and instead into the admitted realm of personal opinion:

Photos of the investor day prototype’s interior, together with the employee’s other comments, have me reasonably worried that the interior/cargo dimensions of the truck will be materially less than previous photos/info had led me to hope for. It’s merely opinion, but I’ve driven a SuperCrew F150 for most of 30 years, and the photos of the investor day beta do not square with the CT having full-sized truck interior dimensions.

Reasonable people can disagree, and that’s the stuff of forum fodder. But to suggest all the above boils down to “people who are worried about missing a few inches in bed size” isn’t quite true or fair.

First up your assumption that the CT "never had wheel wells in the bed" is factually wrong. You have just not noticed them before.

The original prototype had wheels, those wheels were of a diameter and width that meant with suspension travel, the wheel has to pass the side of the bed. Hence the bed had to accommodate such wheel wells already. You can also see this thickening in the bed side walls and the sidwall diagonal fold that allows for a wheel well that fits the original wheel. The bed sidewalls were always sloped inwards to the bed. Just not as much as they are now.

This was one of the features that threw me in 2019, when I was drawing the CT up in CAD, the week after release. Even with that thickening I couldn't get the wheel to fit inside the wheel flares in the current sail design. Which is exactly how the prototype is, and was how it was first displayed. I outlined this issue, that the chosen wheels won't fit the prototype properly, and that in Australia the widest part can't be your wheels, back then in 2019, but it fell on deaf ears.

The main reason for this size increase, as most of us already know, is the rear wheel steering setup. The reason it needs so much more space is that the like the front setup it now also needs camber and caster optimisation so it can naturally track the front wheels. This geometry also means that when the rear wheels steer, it moves the top of the wheel into the wheel well, and needs even more clearance further inwards. (So forwards and backwards of the wheel center, which also means the wheel well has to be wider for longer than on a non 4WS setup)

On top of that the additional air suspension travel, which in itself has to be optimised for low height cruising whilst maintaining enough articulation for off road use (which is hard in itself), also means that at full up articulation the full steering angle must also be possible. That would become the point of contact with the bed wall. It is possible, in fact highly likely, that the rear steer by wire rack and pinion will limit steering angles according to suspension position as to reduce the impact. This means less rear wheel steering angles at suspension extremes.

All up however I see this as a positive outcome for the customer, in that there are so many 4WS changes to the CT now, that it will be standard accross the range to make good use of them. (Which I have stated from the beginning, where most thought it a EM joke or only availableon the QM)

As for the 6th seat question, it might not be there on the pre-production model, but it's no less than 50/50 that it won't be a option still. My main concern why it might not happen is not the vehicle width, which is still ample to do so, rather the extra cost for implementing it safely. Like where does the airbag go, behind the screen? Or what about middle aibag deployment (between front passenger heads) as is common on many other European cars now, or that the middle passenger is thrown around against the driver in off-road conditions that might cause the driver to lose control. There is also a considerable cost element involved in this seat, not just to manufacture but also to insure.

So deleting the 6th seat might be the consequence of having to pay for the rear wheel steering instead, and as such none of the design changes had anything to do with the size reduction at all.

In my experience mist design choices are the result of budget constraints.

In fact I think all the dimension changes, whatever they might be in reality, are all just design optimisations to trim the fat, and improve aero.

This leads me into another positive for customers. CT will be a "unboxed" assembly type vehicle, meaning it is a step beyond even MY manufacturing cost. The CT will be at original price, being $69,990, but will have QM and 4WS, and be amphibious. All included.

Another prediction of mine (there's a thread for it) is that there will be no single motor RWD or dual motor 4WD any more, never a trimotor, there will only be a QM. If there ever was a Dual motor layer on, it would just be RWD. Further proof to this was that they have halved the cost and reduced the motor size for the next vehicles according to investor day.

 

[Crissa]

elon wants tesla to be the king of the world of electric cars. Tesla soon have gigafactories all around the world with billion of potential clients. And they will strictly sell one of their best products only in one country ?

Well, they will sell it to the most profitable market until they have excess supply to sell to less profitable markets.

So yes, they'll probably only sell it in North America for now. And it should be designed to be superior for that market.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

as always, amazing info. Only a few things:

First up your assumption that the CT "never had wheel wells in the bed" is factually wrong. You have just not noticed them before.

I get your point, but think you got mine, too - referring to intruding humps common to standard full-sized beds. (Of course the wheels had to have wells.)

2019 release day never mentioned a bed width, only a 6.5’ length. But given the 6.5’ length stated and remaining apparent dimensions of the bed, the reasonable working assumption of many - and calculated/reported by several automobile news outlets - was a 56-57” wide bed. Narrower by several inches than a standard full sized truck’s widest parts, but that narrowness stood to reason and was forgiven by given the lack of intruding wheel wells common to traditional full sized trucks causing them to have a ~commiserate overal reduction in usable floor space. .

Right or wrong, plenty of people, for a long time have believed this, supported by the lack of observable “wheel wells” (meaning intruding humps) on every prior proto (that I know of) until this invested day unit.

All up however I see this as a positive outcome for the customer, in that there are so many 4WS changes to the CT now, that it will be standard accross the range to make good use of them.

Granted it may be a net positive outcome if 4WS is offered through the range of vehicles, but curious on your better informed view of whether for the CT this 4WS is a “positive” or a “neutral” - from the perspective of comparisons to competition? .

If the CT wheelbase is as long as they said on release day - 5” longer than a comparable F150 - do you think the 4WS gives it remarkably better turning radius, a bit better, the same? And aside from turning radius is the separate matter of maneuverability. Pushing the wheels 5” closer to corners makes turning into a parking spot noticeably different, absent 4WS. But does it make it noticeably better with 4WS, or about the same.

As for the 6th seat question, it might not be there on the pre-production model, but it's no less than 50/50 that it won't be an option still. My main concern why it might not happen is not the vehicle width, which is still ample to do so,

You feel it’s ample for a 6th based on what, though?

I’ll be pleasantly surprised at this point to find out the interior isn’t mid-sized in shoulder/hip width. Not that I’m convinced of it, but instead that there’s enough info to lean more 51%+ towards thinking it possible it’s mid-sized. That investor day proto’s interior was, to my eye, decidedly mid-sized.

Reasonable people can disagree, of course, but I wouldn’t be sure how someone paying close attention is so certain the width is “ample” enough for a 6th seat (setting aside the possibility of hazarding a bench seat in a still mid-sized interior).

Like where does the airbag go, behind the screen?…

These are great points, doubts, about the 6th seat viability.

In my experience mist design choices are the result of budget constraints.

In fact I think all the dimension changes, whatever they might be in reality, are all just design optimisations to trim the fat, and improve aero.

I agree 100%. Or, more directly, possibly to improve the truck to meet stated/expected range specs, which seems a spec Tesla can’t miss. You’d maybe miss interior area expectations before missing range, if only because you’ve never before stated interior dimensions.

The CT will be at original price, being $69,990, but will have QM and 4WS, and be amphibious.

Curious what you think of my thread on the (I’m convinced) carbon fiber underpan portion of the investor day proto (recognizing it could be a proto one-off)?

In any event: with all the great info, I’m still not certain how you think speculation over the possible ‘new’ size boils down to fretting over only a few inches in bed width. Based on this proto at least (which is the limit of the speculation), that he’s sure doesn’t seem 58” wide (the previously working assumption - flawed or not) or 6.5’ long (the 2019 released spec), and separate from the bed I’m personally more fretting over the interior dimensions (with what I think are good-enough basis to justify the concern at 51%).

And since we’re on the thread about the CT’s dimensions being perfect, I have a whole confusion about what the old specs were:

• when the “5% reduction” info came out, I assumed it was referring to the release day on-screen stats 231.7L X 79.8W

• I said that, taken literally, 5% down from on-screen release day stats would suggest the decidedly mid-sized footprint of 220” long X 75.8” wide X 74” tall

• then @RVAC injected and said 5% down would be marked not to on-screen specs but to release day prototype. Strange as that seemed to me, he did also post a rather confusing if convincing tweet from EM:

Note that @RVAC suggested just above that 5% of the prototype size comes out to the 79.8” referenced in the in-screen specs.

While we’re here, I’ll add in the other relevent tween on the topic EM made ~3months after the

And to round out the total of all I know of EM’s comments on the subject, I’ll round out with his comments on the topic during the 2019 release:

​

“So, the functionality I’m going to describe is within a space that is less than the most popular truck in the United States, the F150. So, we didn’t cheat in any of the width, height, or length. And we were able to achieve much greater capability in the same dimensions, same weight.”​

Now, at this point one might say they can rectify some of this conflicting information (but not the tweets that say they were making the truck bigger than the on-screen specs) as @RVAC suggested: the 5% reduction from on-screen takes the truck to 79.8W

At least for width that is a pretty compelling argument on paper: they shrank width 5% from prototype size, which results in on-screen width specs.

On paper, that’s compelling. But I’m still left with the observations of my observations of this investor day proto. The only way my mind reconciles this, is to both believe @RVAC ’s point about width, but conclude that even if it remains the same width as an F150 the CT does not have comparable interior width to an F150.

As for length, though, I’m left still confused. I guess we don’t know the on-stage proto’s length (do we?). But whatever the case, if they made good on EM’s on-stage comments about staying within the footprint of an F150, here again the legroom of the investor day proto don’t suggest a full-sized equivalent interior.

Recognizing the “5% shrinkage” may be wrong altogether, it’s also likely if true that the 5% isn’t a uniform shrinkage. Perhaps some dimensions stayed the same, or shrank by less than 5%.

In all, given @RVAC’s input, even if we here more substantial confirmation of the “5% shrink” I’ll be left uncertain what that means, if left only to that broad generalization. It’s not even clear 5% from what.

 

[JBee]

as always, amazing info. Only a few things:



I get your point, but think you got mine, too - referring to intruding humps common to standard full-sized beds. (Of course the wheels had to have wells.)

2019 release day never mentioned a bed width, only a 6.5’ length. But given the 6.5’ length stated and remaining apparent dimensions of the bed, the reasonable working assumption of many - and calculated/reported by several automobile news outlets - was a 56-57” wide bed. Narrower by several inches than a standard full sized truck’s widest parts, but that narrowness stood to reason and was forgiven by given the lack of intruding wheel wells common to traditional full sized trucks causing them to have a ~commiserate overal reduction in usable floor space. .

Right or wrong, plenty of people, for a long time have believed this, supported by the lack of observable “wheel wells” (meaning intruding humps) on every prior proto (that I know of) until this invested day unit.



Granted it may be a net positive outcome if 4WS is offered through the range of vehicles, but curious on your better informed view of whether for the CT this 4WS is a “positive” or a “neutral” - from the perspective of comparisons to competition? .

If the CT wheelbase is as long as they said on release day - 5” longer than a comparable F150 - do you think the 4WS gives it remarkably better turning radius, a bit better, the same? And aside from turning radius is the separate matter of maneuverability. Pushing the wheels 5” closer to corners makes turning into a parking spot noticeably different, absent 4WS. But does it make it noticeably better with 4WS, or about the same.




You feel it’s ample for a 6th based on what, though?

I’ll be pleasantly surprised at this point to find out the interior isn’t mid-sized in shoulder/hip width. Not that I’m convinced of it, but instead that there’s enough info to lean more 51%+ towards thinking it possible it’s mid-sized. That investor day proto’s interior was, to my eye, decidedly mid-sized.

Reasonable people can disagree, of course, but I wouldn’t be sure how someone paying close attention is so certain the width is “ample” enough for a 6th seat (setting aside the possibility of hazarding a bench seat in a still mid-sized interior).



These are great points, doubts, about the 6th seat viability.




I agree 100%. Or, more directly, possibly to improve the truck to meet stated/expected range specs, which seems a spec Tesla can’t miss. You’d maybe miss interior area expectations before missing range, if only because you’ve never before stated interior dimensions.




Curious what you think of my thread on the (I’m convinced) carbon fiber underpan portion of the investor day proto (recognizing it could be a proto one-off)?

In any event: with all the great info, I’m still not certain how you think speculation over the possible ‘new’ size boils down to fretting over only a few inches in bed width. Based on this proto at least (which is the limit of the speculation), that he’s sure doesn’t seem 58” wide (the previously working assumption - flawed or not) or 6.5’ long (the 2019 released spec), and separate from the bed I’m personally more fretting over the interior dimensions (with what I think are good-enough basis to justify the concern at 51%).

And since we’re on the thread about the CT’s dimensions being perfect, I have a whole confusion about what the old specs were:

• when the “5% reduction” info came out, I assumed it was referring to the release day on-screen stats 231.7L X 79.8W

• I said that, taken literally, 5% down from on-screen release day stats would suggest the decidedly mid-sized footprint of 220” long X 75.8” wide X 74” tall

• then @RVAC injected and said 5% down would be marked not to on-screen specs but to release day prototype. Strange as that seemed to me, he did also post a rather confusing if convincing tweet from EM:

Note that @RVAC suggested just above that 5% of the prototype size comes out to the 79.8” referenced in the in-screen specs.

While we’re here, I’ll add in the other relevent tween on the topic EM made ~3months after the

And to round out the total of all I know of EM’s comments on the subject, I’ll round out with his comments on the topic during the 2019 release:

​

“So, the functionality I’m going to describe is within a space that is less than the most popular truck in the United States, the F150. So, we didn’t cheat in any of the width, height, or length. And we were able to achieve much greater capability in the same dimensions, same weight.”​

Now, at this point one might say they can rectify some of this conflicting information (but not the tweets that say they were making the truck bigger than the on-screen specs) as @RVAC suggested: the 5% reduction from on-screen takes the truck to 79.8W

At least for width that is a pretty compelling argument on paper: they shrank width 5% from prototype size, which results in on-screen width specs.

On paper, that’s compelling. But I’m still left with the observations of my observations of this investor day proto. The only way my mind reconciles this, is to both believe @RVAC ’s point about width, but conclude that even if it remains the same width as an F150 the CT does not have comparable interior width to an F150.

As for length, though, I’m left still confused. I guess we don’t know the on-stage proto’s length (do we?). But whatever the case, if they made good on EM’s on-stage comments about staying within the footprint of an F150, here again the legroom of the investor day proto don’t suggest a full-sized equivalent interior.

Recognizing the “5% shrinkage” may be wrong altogether, it’s also likely if true that the 5% isn’t a uniform shrinkage. Perhaps some dimensions stayed the same, or shrank by less than 5%.

In all, given @RVAC’s input, even if we here more substantial confirmation of the “5% shrink” I’ll be left uncertain what that means, if left only to that broad generalization. It’s not even clear 5% from what.

I agree with most of what you said. But fear for lack of dimensional certainty I can't argue with much conviction either way. FYI I don't think it was a 3 or 5% shrink in all dimensions, rather only in length, as shrinking the height is pointless, seeing its garagable and under 6ft, and that most parking spot standards support Landcruiser type width vehicles anyway, let alone roads, which is within reason of the 80".

The best way for me to get some certainty would be to recreate the beta CT in CAD, at a minimum the rear bed. For that the best way to start would be to use as many different photos (screenshots) from as many different perspectives as possible, to generate a point cloud and a orthomosiac. From that I can measure pixels and points in 3D, scale it to a known or assumed dimension, and from that have something we can optically compare with the CT images. Technically just the edges would suffice in CAD to derive accurate proportions and dimensions from.

For that I just need some time to do it, which currently I really don't have...but maybe I might get to it on the weekend.

In the meantime maybe we can look for as many photos of the current beta as possible to model it from.

 

[slomo]

The goal the of truck was to compete head on with the Ford F-150. It’s a huge vehicle segment that Tesla wants to tap into. The Cybertruck will probably end up being the cash cow for the Tesla once mass production kicks in.

It’s all speculation at this point. Tesla should be revealing specs
and pricing within the next 4-6 months.

I think "was" is the key work here. It will take F150 sales. But most buyers are not seriously cross shopping CT/F150/Silverado.

I'm looking forward to getting my CT, but the radical style choice was a mistake considering Tesla's goals. It should have been a platform for many large vehicles.

 

[RVAC]

While we’re here, I’ll add in the other relevent tween on the topic EM made ~3months after the

It can certainly be read both ways but the way I see it is that when he made that tweet he was thinking about putting the Cybertruck into production with the 2019 "over sized" concept dimensions. A truck that is 84" wide is not unheard of, the F-150 Raptor is 86.6" wide. That is also consistent with the statement that they'll have to make a smaller variant given a truck with those dimensions would be very US centric.

And to round out the total of all I know of EM’s comments on the subject, I’ll round out with his comments on the topic during the 2019 release:

“So, the functionality I’m going to describe is within a space that is less than the most popular truck in the United States, the F150. So, we didn’t cheat in any of the width, height, or length. And we were able to achieve much greater capability in the same dimensions, same weight.”

Not that EM isn't prone to some bending of reality but in terms of length it wouldn't necessarily be a false statement since an F-150 crew cab with 6.5ft bed is 243.5in long.

To add to this point, this is what MotorTrend had to say in reference to the 2019 concept:

"A key issue working against the Cybertruck in four-wheel-drive situations is its size and weight. We've been told designers worked hard to keep the overall length close to a crew cab long-bed half-ton pickup, which translates to a wheelbase of just under 150 inches. That's pretty long—this is a big truck."​

On paper, that’s compelling. But I’m still left with the observations of my observations of this investor day proto. The only way my mind reconciles this, is to both believe @RVAC ’s point about width, but conclude that even if it remains the same width as an F150 the CT does not have comparable interior width to an F150.

Agreed, I'm also of the idea that the geometry of the Cybertruck will likely result in less interior width than an F-150 despite the same exterior width.

As for length, though, I’m left still confused. I guess we don’t know the on-stage proto’s length (do we?). But whatever the case, if they made good on EM’s on-stage comments about staying within the footprint of an F150, here again the legroom of the investor day proto don’t suggest a full-sized equivalent interior.

Correct, we do not have any conclusive evidence. As I've half jokingly stated in the past somebody that is planning on going to the Petersen museum should take a tape measure with them.

For that I just need some time to do it, which currently I really don't have...but maybe I might get to it on the weekend.

Probably not worth the effort, hopefully this guy will stop acting precious and give us an answer soon.

 

[Coolbreeze704]

It can certainly be read both ways but the way I see it is that when he made that tweet he was thinking about putting the Cybertruck into production with the 2019 "over sized" concept dimensions. A truck that is 84" wide is not unheard of, the F-150 Raptor is 86.6" wide. That is also consistent with the statement that they'll have to make a smaller variant given a truck with those dimensions would be very US centric.



Not that EM isn't prone to some bending of reality but in terms of length it wouldn't necessarily be a false statement since an F-150 crew cab with 6.5ft bed is 243.5in long.

To add to this point, this is what MotorTrend had to say in reference to the 2019 concept:

"A key issue working against the Cybertruck in four-wheel-drive situations is its size and weight. We've been told designers worked hard to keep the overall length close to a crew cab long-bed half-ton pickup, which translates to a wheelbase of just under 150 inches. That's pretty long—this is a big truck."​

Agreed, I'm also of the idea that the geometry of the Cybertruck will likely result in less interior width than an F-150 despite the same exterior width.



Correct, we do not have any conclusive evidence. As I've half jokingly stated in the past somebody that is planning on going to the Petersen museum should take a tape measure with them.




Probably not worth the effort, hopefully this guy will stop acting precious and give us an answer soon.

Just needs the toboggan

 

[Zabhawkin]

If you think about it it would have to have the same interior space width wise as mid sized truck. The tires stick out, full sized trucks aside from dualies or Raptor are fully within the fender width. The Cybertruck's body is narrower than the wheels and always has been.

Second these are BIG tires, for example my Jeep's axle width is 58" whereas my Nissan has an axle width of 57", but the Jeep is 7-8 inches wider and has a much smaller bed space side to side.

Third 4 wheel steer as has been stated already will take up more space. Personally I would forgo 4wheel steer to get a wider bed, as well as going with more traditional tire package. But that is just my opinion.

One final note, I doubt Tesla would fail to follow the 4x8 sheet of plywood truck rule, my older model Nissan Frontier which is compact truck sized still has provisions for a 4x8 sheet of plywood.

 

[shaneaus]

You realize Cybertruck has 100 cubic feet of exterior storage while an f150 has 67 cubic feet.

I care little about "overall" storage. My main concern is the bedsize. I need to be able to load sheetrock and plywood flat in the bed. Anything else is great. But, without that ability the rest of the storage is meaningless.

 

[Bluechip506]

You'll be fine. It will hold a sheet of plywood very easily (tailgate down of course).

Sponsored