I would trade aerodynamics and range for a more conventional pickup bed.

[Keeney]

Advertisement

 

[DARKFURY1]

no

 

[Keeney]

This mod is a less drastic change.
In either case, an optional sloping topper could be added back to get the original profile and aerodynamic characteristics.

 

[Camper Van Someren]

This mod is a less drastic change.
In either case, an optional sloping topper could be added back to get the original profile and aerodynamic characteristics.

You would not only sacrifice range you would also sacrifice strength. This is a unibody vehicle (no frame underneath like a normal truck) which means the strength/rigidity comes from the shape. Triangles are strong, L-shapes are not. This is the same reason the 1st gen Honda Ridgeline had “sail panels” on either side of the bed. 2nd gen they added reinforcements at the bed-cab junction but this also added weight.

Lots of people are trying to explain the CT design in terms of aerodynamics or aggressive sci-fi shock value but they are wrong. Novel construction was clearly the first priority (saving money with no paint and saving weight with a stressed “exoskeleton” skin) and then aero was the second priority, working within the constraints of the thick strong stainless skin. Functionality (of the bed) was 3rd or lower priority, and no thought was given to making it look like a traditional truck.

 

[Keeney]

You would not only sacrifice range you would also sacrifice strength.

The sail sections are not necessary for strength. Plenty of trucks are plenty strong enough with a mere pair steel rails connecting the front to the back. Those rails are about 6" high and only about 1/8" thick C-shaped sections. Plus the sail outer skins are not even structural - they are doors. The inner skins are interrupted by the roll-top track and the light bar. Believe what you want, but the sloped top and cover are much more important to aerodynamics than they are for strength.

… Functionality (of the bed) was 3rd or lower priority

Yes, that is, exactly my point. The traditional pickup truck bed has evolved over decades to make it the most popular vehicle configuration, ever. I would argue that its the versatility to configure the truck for various purposes that makes it so popular. if you want enclosed cargo space, add a topper. You want a roll top cover, add one. If you want a sloped aerodynamic rear profile there are even toppers available like that.

If Tesla made the sloped back cover and side sails removable or optional, they could capture even more of the traditional truck market. By locking in a less general-purpose configuration, the CyberTruck is less versatile. and will appeal to a smaller market.

… and no thought was given to making it look like a traditional truck.

I only care about that to the extent that form follows function in regards to the utility and versatility of the truck bed.

 

[Camper Van Someren]

The sail sections are not necessary for strength. Plenty of trucks are plenty strong enough with a mere pair steel rails connecting the front to the back. Those rails are about 6" high and only about 1/8" thick C-shaped sections. Plus the sail outer skins are not even structural - they are doors. The inner skins are interrupted by the roll-top track and the light bar. Believe what you want, but the sloped top and cover are much more important to aerodynamics than they are for strength.

“Plenty of trucks” (in fact nearly all) are not unibody. In fact if you look closely, the bed is not connected to the cab at all. They are both bolted to a heavy steel ladder frame. Then they move independently of each other as the frame flexes. Tesla could have done that but it would have weighed about 5 tons. Instead they got about the weight of an F150 including batteries which is quite an accomplishment.

The only mainstream unibody truck I know of is the Ridgeline.

The Chevy Avalanche was kind of a hybrid with a unibody body sitting on a frame.

Then there are smallish car-trucks like the Subaru Baja

and the Utes that the Aussies drive

Notice a pattern?


Here is a good explanation of body on frame vs unibody trucks
https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405/amp
And here is one explaining it in relation to the Cybertruck
https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/22/heres-why-the-tesla-cybertruck-has-its-crazy-look/amp/

 

[Cyber_Dav]

If 'normal design' is what you want, there is Rivian R1T.

 

[bdmridgeback]

That looks terrible

 

[Keeney]

“Plenty of trucks” (in fact nearly all) are not unibody. In fact if you look closely, the bed is not connected to the cab at all. They are both bolted to a heavy steel ladder frame.

Cannot imagine how 6" of 1/8" thick steel is considered a "heavy steel frame" when the sides of the CyberTruck are 30"+ high x 1/8" thick.

Notice a pattern?

Yes, the obvious pattern is that none of those trucks sells in numbers anywhere close to a Ford F150 of GM 1500 with a conventional pickup bed (in the U.S.). The Avalanche is discontinued. The Ridgeline is redesigned this year to have a more conventional box. Toyota got into the pickup market with a conventional bed. So did Nissan.

I want the payload and larger box of the CT. I like the stainless. I know Tesla will have the best EV tech. I get why they need the aerodynamics for range, but when I don't need the range, I will often wish the bed wasn't hemmed-in by the side sails and overhang of the cab..

The Rivian is too small of a bed and too little payload. The Bollinger too expensive. We will see what kind of range numbers and price Ford and GM have on their EV pickups that are likely to be released around the same time.

 

[Camper Van Someren]

Yes, the obvious pattern is that none of those trucks sells...

... the pattern is that those unibody vehicles all have triangle shaped supports connecting the cab to the bed.

Sounds like you’ll be happier with a F150 EV when that comes out, and that is fine. Just don’t expect the shape of the CT to change much.