“The People have voted. The bastards,” a wise man once said. We have tallied your votes on the Autopian’s powerful Ball-o-tron 9000, a weird glowing cube under my drafting table (When I asked David how it was humming and glowing without even being plugged in, he gave me a very serious stare and said “Don’t Ever Ask That Again”), and by far the vehicle you maniacs wanted to see next was a cabover pick up truck. So allow me to try my hand at one.
I mulled this as I was rearranging my black turtle neck sweater drawer (it’s the one underneath my watch collection drawer). You see, you can of course still get those adorable Kei cabover pick ups in Japan and on much of the Asian subcontinent. It’s a perfect way to have maximum utility in a compact size. If you had a death wish you could even import an old one into the USA. So there wouldn’t be much point in doing something like that (even though that’s where my mind was originally wandering – some sort of last mile commercial/gig economy type thing). [Editor’s note: Quite a few folks are doing that these days! -DT]. And if you’re masochist enough Chevrolet will sell you something called a “Low Cab Forward.” But that has the slight problem of being a massive commercial vehicle.
Then I thought about the Ford Ranger. I’m sure it’s a fine vehicle (I’ve never driven one) but the issue is for the single cab the bed is 72-inches long in a vehicle that is 210-inches long in total. So only about a third of the length is given over to cargo. That’s bonkers. A cabover would do much better and we could probably get the bed length to the hallowed 8-ft figure. But I wanted something more than that — something more sophisticated and cool that would still have lots of utility, but would also be suitable to be your daily driver when you weren’t helping your friends move a couch.
And then it hit me. What if we merged the first generation Toyota Previa with a VW Transporter? The Previa’s problem with it being mid engined was that there wasn’t room for a bigger motor, so it felt a bit underpowered for U.S. tastes. The VW’s problem was it didn’t have an engine at all, just a metal box that turned gas into noise. And it was in the wrong place; but it was supremely space efficient. What I’m thinking is we can have a nice modern hybrid power plant tucked way down low in the middle of the chassis (modern engines being much more reliable, the location is less of an issue), stuff the thing with batteries, and send the power to the rear wheels. Keep the whole thing reasonably close to the ground for better aero and ability to chuck stuff in the bed, and job done I’m off to the pub. 
What I’ve done this week is slightly different. It’s four very different versions all on the same platform (I’ve used the same wheels in every sketch). The length I’ve decided should be about 190-inches – the same as a long wheelbase Transit Connect but way shorter than a Ranger (which is actually longer than it’s name sake, the full size Range Rover! [Editor’s Note: It should be obvious by now that Adrian is British. -DT]) but the height varies. And yes, one of them is an aggressive active leisure jacked up 4WD thing because I’m the Chief Designer around here that’s why.
As usual feel free to leave scorn, skepticism and suggestions in the comments; I’ll dive in as well and we’ll figure out which direction we’re going to take this in. And if I’ve missed something blindingly obvious, please say so.
My old Chief Designer genuinely used to say design is not a democracy. Well, that’s easy enough to say when you don’t have a strange glowing cube under his desk.
I love all of these designs. If they were for sale, I’d be marching down with cash in hand to pick up the Friendly.
How do you deal with safety issues, specifically crumple zones? The Canoo pickup looks like a cabover, but they actually have the seats pretty far back.
https://www.canoo.com/pickup/
Similar approach, or something else?
“How do you deal with safety issues, specifically crumple zones?”
I’d think it would be fairly similar to how the Smart Car did it? Part of the brilliance of that was they just bounced off anything, so you couldn’t do that, but the rigidity of the Smart Car coupled with the height of a cab over should help in most crash situations.
I’d like to see the first three of these reworked with a minimal Ford Econoline style nose tacked on the front.
I bet there’s a lot you can do to enhance safety with 18 inches or so, if that’s the only purpose of those extra 18 inches.
The last one already has some extra space in the front, although part of it is enclosed in the greenhouse.
Basically what I do for crash safety is leave it to the engineers to sort out.
Seriously what happens in the studio is once a theme is selected to go forwards, studio engineering will provide ‘package data’ that the design then has to fit over. So once you get into full size 3D models, they will be what is known as ‘on package’ ie not too far away from reality.
Engineering teams will already have done a lot of work on crash safety before giving the package to design, so you will have an idea of seating position, hard points etc. I mentioned it elsewhere but if you look at something like the iD Buzz, that’s probably about as flat fronted as you could get these days, in terms of seating. You still need to maintain head swing clearances from the windshield which means you can’t put the passengers too close.
#1 looks very similar to the Canoo truck. Which I believe to be a good thing.
https://www.canoo.com/pickup/
Junior and/or friendly for me. I love a flat face with a slightly bemused/confused look. Junior looks a bit like Iron Man, so maybe give it round headlights so you don’t risk having to pay royalties to Disney 🙂
The sporty version looks fine, but I think it works best as a minivan. Not bad, of course, but now I’m more curious to see it with a proper big butt :-). Also, wouldn’t the long(ish) cabin prevent the long bed?
Lastly, I’m not a big fan of the Unimog, but it is kind of growing on me. Also (and this is not a diss) it looks like a perfect vehicle for the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles :-). I think you made the slit headlights/big mouth combo work really well. I might even buy one if the other three weren’t available.
Excellent work, well done!
Just to clarify, my preferences on that order:
#3, #1, #4, #2, and way closer than what I expected.
Yes, the sporty one would have a shorter bed because the cabin would need to be longer to accommodate a more reclined seating position.
Friendly looks the best to me, but these all (especially Friendly and Sporty) feel too futuristic to be taken seriously as a work vehicle over here. I’m not sure how to do it without it just looking like a miniature cabover semi cab, which you obviously leaned into in 3.
Design departments work at least 4 or 5 years in advance at this stage – it takes a year or two to do the creative stuff (like we’re doing here) and then a further 3 – 4 years to get it ready for production.
I don’t like any of them. What I’m thinking a modern cabover should be comes in 2 main types.
1.) RWD Base drivetrain, 4WD or AWD option
2.) FWD Base drivetrain, 4WD or AWD option.
For the RWD drivetrain variant I’d have one frame size for all configurations.
Single cab 8ft bed (3 abreast), extended cab 6ft bed (3 abreast front row, extra seating depending on what can pass crash test standards, maybe just enough room for child seats), crew cab 4.5ft (3 abreast per row, 2 rows total). RWD with the maximum steering angle possible for the tightest turning circle. Using a little engine like Ford’s Fox 3 cylinders with a manual transmission or a CVT (planetary CVT via hybrid powertrain). Optioning 4WD or AWD would limit turning circle in the short term, via in wheel motors one can have both a tight turning circle and AWD/4WD.
For the FWD based drivetrain I’d put the engine and gas tank all above the wheels (probably with another Ford Fox 3 cylinder), and then 3 abreast seating above that to maximize the weight over the driven wheels. Single cab configuration only. lowest deck height possible/practical. Body on frame. maybe lay the 3 cylinder on its side to lower the cab height. Riding on the smallest tires you can get snow tires for. Frame size can be extended by requesting a longer frame where a running and “driving” front section that contains the cab, engine, transaxle, wheels tires, etc. is all ready built and you just insert a longer frame into the main frame of the cab for extra long models. Possible articulated rear end option where different articulated rear ends can be exchanged much like how one puts on a trailer.
Electric variants of both would be easy. Put the battery pack between the frame rails on the RWD based variant and put the battery pack under the front seats over the driven wheels on the FWD variant.
Both variants would be no wider than the new Ford Maverick but both would turn much tighter (unless you opt for a very long fixed frame on your FWD model) while seating more in the same length or less.
It’s unlikely in the near term that in wheel motors will happen, for a variety of reasons (durability, suspension geometry and unsprung weight, although that’s less of a consideration for a pick up).
Putting everything over the front wheels for your FWD version is going to result in an extremely high H point – and a very tall vehicle. Also such a vehicle would be fundamentally unbalanced. You have to spread the centers of mass out along the length or you’re potentially giving yourself stability problems.
I like the idea of a cabover pickup.
(He said, then slowly backed out of the room and cautiously closed the door.)
Frigging Brits don’t know trucks, they lorries, ie Laurie’s so girls truck ie kei trucks. Frankly a truck should have more than 1 battery but it needs to run ICE cold. Those abominations the front looks like the back of an SUV. Was the front so ugly they removed it and taught it to drive in reverse? Frankly there already is a COE truck. It is the Ford E350 cutaway. Of course everyone puts a box on it and makes it a van but slap a 16 foot bed instead of a 16 foot box now we’re talking a bed. Or add a 2nd row of seats and doors you can still have a tiny 12 foot bed. Go with a larger V8 or Diesel you are still the contractor everyone looks up to.
#3 for me. Maximized utility, “command seating”, still looks good.
I’m probably leaning this way as well. With some clever trim/colorway combinations you could probably give it a more aggressive appearance or more friendly, without changing much.
Friendly, then Sporty. Junior Semi beats Unimog, though Unimog with a dump bed (which is what my mind went to with the drawing) would be very practical.
That said, you get a manufacturer to make any of these and I am in. I was really rooting for Canoo to survive and make their pickup because it was the closest to a cabover I figure we are likely to see.
These make me think the next exercise I would like to see is updated versions of promotional vehicles like the Oscar Meir mobile and whatever that Redbull mini thing was a few years ago.
#1 is closest to an scaled-up Kei truck, so it gets my vote.
I also like FrankenCamry’s idea for bedsides converting into ramps. (Not sure what they would need to be made of to avoid getting scarred from such use, though.)
Definitely #1 for me. It’s the drop down bed sides that do it for me.
Any of them could have drop down sides to be honest, although number 4 would call for some nifty shut line management.
YES!
As one of the people who suggested a cabover truck, this was the fastest yet that I’ve clicked on an article upon opening the site, and I am extremely pleased with the results!
Personally, I think #3, the Junior Semi, is my favorite and would have a decent chance to sell well. I think it fits most with the aesthetic of modern truck design, which is to say, “beefy, aggressive, and macho,” without being as much of a departure as the #2 Unimog-inspired design.
That said, the #1 “Friendly” design is also great, although I think it would probably benefit from a slightly less-friendly (and more traditional) face. Even though it would likely increase drag, I think it would be worth sacrificing a bit of range by having distinct headlights and some horizontal slats (even if they’re purely decorative) in lieu of the “mouth” to help it sit better with a typical truck buyer.
To be honest, aero is not going to be great on any of these, and changing small details on the front doesn’t make a lot of difference (as long as it’s not more openings – they give you a world of aero pain). So it could be a little less friendly and have a different light graphic without impacting aero count.
As unpopular as it seems in the comments I like number 3 best. I’d like to see any of them though with a clean design, none of the modern cluttered stuff with vents and ‘character’ lines everywhere.
The problem is you need vents for HVAC, brake cooling and general airflow management. Likewise with feature lines – they enable large stampings to hold their shape and add strength.
1 & 3 for me. There are 2 Santa Cruz’s in the middle school carpool lane lately and #4 gives me visions of those. Not really a fan of those. Friendly cab version would allow for rear seat, no?
I’m with you there. #1 is especially good looking and has utility with the drop down sides.
Conceivably yes, I’ve obviously not (nor am I going to!) lay out an orthographic package drawing, but designer Spidey-sense tells me there would be room for a jump seat.
If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it
Christ you’re more cynical than me, and I’m British!
But how good is he at queuing?
Once I was at Oslo airport and had to lay down a bit of British Queuing smackdown on some Norwegians who were determined to just push in ahead of me.
This is by far my favorite design exercise so far! Bravo, sir! Love ‘em.
I’m working on my own pseudo-cabover truck design. It’s decidedly more friendly than even your friendliest design, I think. But it’s really just a showcase for it’s party-trick bed cover, which I’ll animate and explain in detail… soon.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CdiyvACOkTc/?igshid=YTE5ODU0Yjk=
Number 1 and number 4 are my favorites. They seem good useful designs.
I like 2 and 4.
Two is like the small useful truck. Four is like a modern El Camino/UTE.
Agree on #4. Probably the least utilitarian of the 4, but also probably the easiest to live with as a DD. Definitely a bit of El Camino/Ranchero feel to it. Also reminds me of the Hot Wheels Deora, which is a very good thing.
I’ll take a #1 with a #4 on the side.
1 for me
but 4 is the ElCamino look, nice, but not as practical as a truck.
Unrelated to the cab-over portion of the design, but your hinged bedsides in the Friendly reminded me of an idea from my youth. With a pivoting hinge on the rear corner, the bedsides should be able to function as 8′ long loading ramps. The advent of aluminum beds would keep the weight down enough to work with a simple spring assist on the hinge for 1 person operation.
No more figuring out how to stow the ramps after you put whatever vehicle into most of the bed! It’d sell dozens!
OK, I’ve just gone over your idea in my head for a bit and the only big challenge I’m coming up with is how to get the wiring to the lights that may or may not need to be on the the hinged area on the rear corner. If there are no lights required above the bed in the back this could be exactly what’s needed by even more than dozens of pickup drivers.
I’d also consider adding a lighter duty four foot ramp extension that comes out from the formally cab side of the truck side.
The lighting is a challenge, I’ll grant you that. That would be a lot of slack to build in or more convoluted contact points in a non-wire based solution.
My mental design includes the tailgate splitting in half to be add on sections since it needs to get out of the way anyway, so I like your thinking on extension options.
Some of my design thoughts evolved when I gained experience with tri-fold aluminum ramps at the house. Something like a 1500lb combined rating should be a piece of cake and not weigh much more than a standard steel bed.
I figured that the tail gate would have to go down and slightly forward (or under if it makes it easier to picture) to accommodate the ramps downward angle.
I have a mental image of a side wall that swings out ninety degrees with no more than two front pins cab side and downward that when released gives you side access. If you push it beyond 90 the side rail lifts up 2 or three inches which allows the side wall to lever over and down to make the ramp.
I’d draw this out but then the drawing would only remain here on a post it note.
If you make it the same on both sides you’ll need at least 32″ feet of space to have 2 ramps out the back to be (easily) useful. 8 left 8 right plus at least 6 in the middle? It seems like that should be mostly do-able for the dozens of people who would fully use this setup?
The back bed corner/hinge point is a stout 50-100 mm (2 -4 inch) fixed tube. The bed side hinges on this tube at the bottom and the top with rings around the tube, just like a hinge on a hinge pin. The tail lights reside in the center of the tube between the two hinge rings. When the bed side is opened, it swings around the pin 180 degrees untill it is all behind the tail gate still upright. Then the bed side detaches from the upper hinge ring and lays down leaving the lower ring as a support and the inner surface of the bed now facing up as a loading surface. An additional panal could slide out of the upper hinge area of one side and engage with the other side to create a solid panel across the entire width of the tail gate at least a few cm wide.
I wouldn’t go solid panel side to side, I’d prefer a shallower up ramp.
We now have three competing designs. The only reasonable solution is to bring all three to market and let the public decide.
I will see you all in bankruptcy court for coffee and donuts.
You all now have jobs as studio engineers.
Both rear sides would do the same thing. The ramps would be as long as the bed side and as wide as the bed side is tall. The slide out connector panels would connect the ramps together at the top and bottom.
I’d have to go with #2
With the announcement of the New Delorean, would you be able to sketch out how it should’ve been done?
That’s a good idea for the future, “How I would have done it”. Better check my flame suit….
I like the look of the Junior Semi best and Unimog second best. Both look like they would be very functional vehicles. The longest bed on the Junior Semi is a big plus. I could see this being an excellent tow vehicle, specifications dependent of course. Good work on all the designs.
Since when is Otto a trained vehicle designer? They all look like the back end of SUVs and the Unimog looks like a transformer.
I had the same thought that the Unimog looks like a Transformer. The Friendly also bears a striking resemblance to the arse end of a mid-90s Suburban.
I like the other two, though. The Super Sporty is genuinely cool. It looks like a retrofuturistic cabover interpretation of an El Camino. While I’m not a huge fan of the Junior Semi, a pickup with an 8 foot bed that is less than 22 feet long would be incredibly useful.
I like #1 as a utility truck. I like #4 as it reminds me of a hotwheels car 🙂
I like the Junior Semi best – I think it’s the most realistic of the bunch thinking more along the lines of a traditional-looking American pickup, rather than the “futuristic” Tesla Cybertruck for example. I would totally consider that if it were a real truck for sale.