(Posts like this will go away once we turn off pagination.)
There are also some previous related threads:
The Electric Ford F-150 Can Power Your House for Three Days on a Single Charge - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27232576 - May 2021 (14 comments)
Ford unveils the F-150 Lightning, its all-electric pickup truck - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27218029 - May 2021 (88 comments)
How Ford Built an Electric F-150 That Can Do Real Work for $40K - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27217386 - May 2021 (7 comments)
Everything about this vehicle launch appears masterful, from its technology to its branding to the obvious care taken to ensure that in almost every respect it is so superior, and offers so many no-brainers, as to make anyone who can (both individuals and especially, fleet managers), buy these as fast they can.
This thing has more than one killer app.
The biggest by far IMO is its ability to power high voltage high draw tools at the jobsite.
If you have never worked on a jobsite, this is a BFD.
This is itself a game changer, it offers the ability to "disrupt" in a material way a whole class of project. Logistics just got 20% simpler and projects 30% cheaper.
Sure, it can go super fast; yes, you can lock your stuff in the truck...
But the other killer feature for fleet owners is that these are remotely manageable.
Your fleet now has detailed telemetry and its only going to get better.
And this is on launch.
We just got a RAV4 Prime and if I didn't live in SF proper, I might be seriously regretting not waiting for this thing. (I don't, and don't think this makes sense in the city.)
If we move to e.g. Sonoma and work remote? This would be that no brainer.
Hallelujah. Now, to invest in Ford...
I have a TIG welder and a solid state linear amplifier that I'd love to be able to power from my truck instead of from a generator.
What I would like to figure out is if it can actually backfeed the home with 240V split phase power. That would be a seriously big deal if it could, it's not a common generator feature as it is. I'm skeptical, but they did claim it could transition from charging to supplying the house and back to charging when the power returned. Probably some fine print there where they say "only with the 120V charger". Otherwise, that would just be killer. An automatic whole-house UPS that can easily support all your needs for hours or even a couple days in a pinch.
It is good that people are aware of the risk, but in reality the risk is quite low. It is standard procedure for a lineman to ground a line he's about to work on, to mitigate the risk of any power source feeding it. But I'd never advocate a DIY setup. But damn near everyone I know with a portable generator has a suicide cord and just flips the mains. Ah well.
How many linemen are killed a year in the US due to backup generators or similar? Are there no procedures they can do to work on lines safer?
But since lives are at stake here, we prefer to have layers of protection rather than just one thing. Grounding jumpers can fail if not properly connected (a large mechanical force will be applied to the jumper when the phase-to-ground fault current flows through it).
Bottom line, respect the electrical code and connect generators through a transfer switch. These rules are in place for a reason.
In fact it's likely the transformer on the street between your house and the network that's responsible for the death of the linemen. IIRC that's a step down transformer (so step up when run backwards like this.)
oh, you mean like solar PV on-grid setups ...
Some battery systems, like the Tesla Powerwall include a contactor that allow their microgrid battery systems to conform to the standard without a loss of power to the site they power.
Needless to say, if you're looking for a backup power source this isn't a property you want.
(an idiot who the state of NM certified last year to install his own on-grid solar PV system, so doubly an idiot!)
A correct install is of course also required as it's possible to screw up and unintentionally cripple this important safety feature.
I wonder if the wiring is basically plug the 240v split phase into a special outlet in the house that feeds the transfer switch. The 80amp charger is then just a charger.
Could be completely wrong though. We'll know more at launch.
Product launch is when something is released and you can buy it, not when someone published plans and best wishes.
It basically worse and more expensive at everything and its very unlikely Ford can build close to as many as the Cybertruck. Simply because of batteries alone and other production capacity as well (a lot is shared with the other F150s).
Its really slow charging considering the time it will come out. If you want to use this to transport anything its range is worse compared to the Cybertruck and its gone charge much slower.
This will likely sell well and they will likely sell as many as they can make. But that doesn't make it a game changer.
This will sell well but
Remember when 5 years ago people claimed that as soon car companies make electric cars they would outsell Tesla?
Well the fact is that Tesla sells more EV by far then even VW by a large amount.
Scaling BEV production is hard, and just because for produces lots of ICE cars does not mean they can magically produce lots of EVs.
Do yourself a favor and actually learn about BEV production and supply chain issues.
Remember 5 years ago when Telsa fans claimed BEV range and acceleration wasn't possible for legacy automakers?
Ford sell more F series vehicles per year than all tesla models combined - why are you assuming they need to pivot asap to EV only?
No, I don't. Its the opposite, most people were saying that legacy makers could do it eventually but they need to make massive investments in EV production, and guess what, they did.
Tesla fan were actually right, it took way longer then people said for real mass market EV to come out.
But of course Tesla got the lead and they are not just outselling everybody else and are still among the leaders in performance and efficiency.
> Ford sell more F series vehicles per year than all tesla models combined - why are you assuming they need to pivot asap to EV only?
They don't but in a few years EV version will outperform the alternative ICE version along pretty much every dimension and there will be huge demand for EV trucks.
The question is if you at that point have the capacity to produce them in accordance with demand.
The hybrid F-150 could already do that.
A production prototype doesn't even exist yet.
Cybertruck is Musk's equivalent of the Mac G4 Cube ego mistake, except far worse. He understood that electric vehicles should look like existing conceptions of vehicles, things people can easily identify with as being vehicles they'd want to drive, but electric and maybe sexy + better in various boring functional ways. He abandoned that with the Cybertruck, and it'll bomb accordingly over time. Meanwhile Ford will sell a bazillion electric trucks, and humiliate Tesla's efforts in the space (in his inability to be humble, Musk will fall back on claiming Cybertruck is superior, even as it doesn't sell very well).
Tesla should have acquired Ford in a stock swap, left it an independent operating entity, and electrified their trucks; or acquired a huge minority position (in a stock swap) if the Ford family wouldn't go for a full acquisition. They should have done that years ago. They were too self-absorbed to see the obvious opportunity. The electrified trucks would be enormous profit centers. Now, instead, Tesla will almost entirely miss out on the zillion dollar electric truck market, which they could have had a big slice of. Tesla's only shot is to abandon Cybertruck and build a normal looking truck, which they won't do for several years until the pain from the embarrassment overwhelms Musk's ego problems (otherwise they'll just leave Cybertruck as a low volume trinket in their lineup, or abandon the space entirely).
I have a pre-order Cybertruck and may or may not be in a position to buy one when they land in Australia (if they land at all) but man it's cool.
Think of the Lamborghini Countach , it was designed decades ago and it still looks like it's from outer space!
EDIT: Saying that, if this new F150 came to Australia (or say an all electric Raptor) I'd probably go for the Ford. I currently drive a 2019 Hilux and it's a very handy do everything car, but the F150 is quite a lot larger and not really suited to the (very few) Australian cities.
Even at 20% conversion of preorders (and that is way lower Tesla usually gets) they have plent for the first 1-2 years of production and that is assuming that they don't get more orders (again as they did with ever other car).
This is just your personal taste and you have formed your opinion on that 100%. Not a single actual state about the Cybertruck or its release indicates anthing like what you suggest.
> humiliate Tesla's efforts in the space
Ford wins in a space Tesla doesn't have a product in. Wow. Amazing.
> Tesla should have acquired Ford in a stock swap
That you believe that shows how you have absolutely no understanding of the car market. That the worst possible idea.
> Tesla's only shot is to abandon Cybertruck and build a normal looking truck
Or you know if your outrage claims are actually true, they could build a 'normal' turck and the Cyberturck. Crazy that a company could produce two different trucks.
The battery availability is the fundamental constraint.
Plus the added visibility is nice and certainly would increase safety, I would think.
People walk in rural areas, too; and those roads are often not designed for it and these accidents tend to happen at night. There's a significant percentage of pedestrian deaths that happen out of the city under these circumstances.
Trucks and SUVs are on average newer than cars and at a higher price point, which means more newer safety features like object detection and driver warnings. I also suspect the feeling of mass in driving a larger vehicle makes you take driving more seriously.
I think it's the opposite. Also larger vehicles feel slower when you drive them even when you are doing 80.
My yelling at one driver who was staring at her phone while driving out of a parking ramp and across the sidewalk where she nearly hit me, probably woke her up enough to avoid driving into traffic and being hit by a bus!
No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.
They could also just add mirrors as has long been standard between concept and production motorcycles. (Example )
people being distracted isn't a new feature; people being given distractions in the cabin is.
I'm not sure exactly what your argument is, to be quite frank.
Are you insinuating that less visibility isn't hindering the ability to drive safely?
There are additional devices commonplace in vehicles to make up for the lack of visibility -- pedestrian detection/auto-braking/switching cameras for example -- but surely a car would be safer to both pedestrians and the passengers if it had those types of features along with increased visibility..
>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.
As a former auto mechanic, maybe i'm over-exposed.. but :
1) car interior design changes yearly, and it's usually to sate consumer desires rather than for safety/usability/efficiency.
2) mechanical failures aren't rare. mechanical failures that may end in injury or loss-of-life aren't rare, either.
The DoD has done tons of usability studies with regards to UI/UX. If auto manufacturers wanted a safe/repeatable/efficient environment then the interiors would probably share a lot of features with fighter jets; tactile buttons, audio cues, correct information density, etc.
They don't look anything like this -- this is a clue to the consumer that there are different priorities in mind at the manufactures' HQ, namely lately ICE (in-car entertainment, not internal combustion engine; sorry for possible confusion) and technological glitz like RGB lighting.
Because of high crash incompatibility, more overall damage and death occurs because of SUVs (and other similar vehicles).
You can always find a subpopulation where some effect is large; that can't be good reason to make rules that constrain the entire population.
Regulation: cars should be safer
Impact: All vehicles continuously increase in size and weight year on year, decreasing the safety of older vehicles and non-vehicular road users
unless the form factor has some very significant upside that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences.
>It's clear consumers in the US value the large truck format and are willing to pay for it.
no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the free market to determine what types of things get made.
Nope. "Deaths should always be prioritized over aesthetics" is a clearly bad rule because it is innumerate. You must always trade off how many deaths for the preferences of how many people. Otherwise all design of everything is dictated solely by safety.
> no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the free market to determine what types of things get made.
No, you need to read about externalities and Pigovian taxes. The entire point of the proposed tax is that it does not require the car buyer to care about pedestrians whatsoever.
Pedestrians are the ones who should be the first to reach zero deaths IMO, since they weren't the ones who decided to drive around in a deadly machine in the first place and are usually completely innocent in their own danger.
Commuting on a scooter I've seen more than my fair share of pedestrians on phones walking out into traffic and idiots on bikes blowing through red lights. Sometimes everyone involved can be at fault.
How is this acceptable??
Cities should start taxing the size of vehicles too if they're going to let people park on the street. Smart cars are a fantastic utility vehicle for example, but are not incentivised enough.
You're not kidding! I was in the market for a small pickup and checked out the Tacoma and Frontier, which I previously understood to be "small" trucks. They're massive these days, just like the F-150! I guess it's perceived that there's no market for that size any more.
A small electric pickup would be a super handy thing to have around, potentially appealing to urbanites too since they can toss their groceries in the frunk. There's really no reason the frunk needs to be so big on the F-150 Lightning - that part of the design is really a head scratcher.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Ford did a lot of internal research, and focus groups, on the marketability of differently designed electric trucks to their primary customers and came to the conclusion that their consumers like the way the trucks look and are more likely to adopt electric trucks if they look the same and offer tangible benefits. Consider the massive frunk, that can hold 400 pounds of gear, or the 2k hauling capacity, or the on board outlets, including a 240v plug, or all the fancy new towing features (that are hopefully not useless vapor ware). If I was in charge of a large truck work truck fleet that averages less than 200 miles/day I'd be replacing at least a few of my oldest trucks with these and give them to the senior guys to break in and see how they do. This truck could be a serious game changer. Ford's not my favorite vehicle manufacturer but they've got my respect for building a serious electric truck at a reasonable price.
Next: Cold fusion jet pack!
The only thing the same is the name.
That said, I really wish they would have started there. I want an electric truck. I don't want one anywhere near as large as an F150. I understand F150s sell better so know why they went that route, but an electric Ranger/Colorado could really dominate the fleet market.
Write your representative and tell them to thank the EPA and NHTSA for doing their jobs. The death of the small pickup is squarely the fault of the confluence of fuel economy and crash safety regulations.
It seems like those regulations aren't working they way they ought to if the result is to encourage people to drive bigger cars than they need and to have more cars on the road that minimize the safety risk to the occupants while maximizing risk to everyone else...
> The death of the small pickup is squarely the fault of the confluence of fuel economy and crash safety regulations.
...and the chicken tax.
Regulations rarely end up with the outcomes the people pushing for the regulations publicly claim the desired outcome is.
They put energy requirements on dishwashers, they're not going to give EVs a pass.
It did come back last year, probably after meeting new regulation requirements.
Just call it a pickup.
I grow vegetables. Because I grow vegetables, I occasionally need to pick up a yard of compost. I need a bed to bring that back to the farm. A pickup can do this, too.
I own a tractor. Because I own a tractor, I need to be able to tow said tractor to the nearest dealer or machine shop to get it serviced and repaired. I need a vehicle that can tow a trailer carrying multi-thousand-pound many-foot-long tractor + loader + three-point implement setup. A pickup can do this, too.
I cook using ingredients I don't grow myself. Because I cook, I need to be able to buy groceries. I need a vehicle to bring as many groceries as I buy at once back to my house. Would you really suggest that if I already have a pickup for the above three needs, I should keep a second non-pickup vehicle around just to run to the supermarket, the doctor, or local watering hole?
That's a lot of expense when I could just have a general-purpose vehicle that does it all. HN seems to be all about general-purpose computers that can do more than you might need day-to-day. The same can apply to vehicles.
If you're using the pickup to haul to and from the jobsite 99% of the time, sure it doesn't make sense to buy something else to do errands around town on the weekends.
You'd be in the minority though.
Most household pickup owners in North America use them as a car. Here in Alberta there are more pickups sold every year than any other vehicle category. They are simply using the wrong tool for the job, and defend their 'fashion' choice by the once a year they throw in a bag of compost from home depot.
Furthermore, most North American households have 2+ vehicles, they do in fact have a choice as to which tool to use for groceries.
We seem to think because we have the freedom to drive a V8 half ton dually less than a block to the mailbox with the aircon blasting, that it somehow makes it any less of a stupid thing to do.
Most North Americans translate whatever freedoms we've been granted into one: the freedom to thoughtlessly consume and squander without restraint. I guess it remains to be seen whether your freedom is a good thing or not, but the way things been going I suspect it aint gonna go your way forever.
Even a 5-year-old knows: if you keep using your transformer as a projectile aimed at your brother, it's gonna be taken away.
How lucky that we're all grown up adults and the government is not our mommy!
Example: https://truckvault.com/vehicles/pickup but there are others.
Registration is much cheaper if you have a camper shell because the vehicle ceases being 'commercial'.
> Adding a camper shell to a pickup truck does not necessarily constitute a change from commercial to auto registration. The addition must meet the definitions for human habitation or camping purposes. Otherwise, the vehicle may be subject to citation from law enforcement for not meeting the definition of an auto. Human habitation is defined as living space which includes, but is not limited to: closets, cabinets, kitchen units or fixtures, and bath or toilet rooms.
. The police never check.
You'd be surprised how expensive an old pickup's registration can be in CA.
The main problem isn't the cheating by low-end tradesmen but that the average schlub's truck is considered a 'commercial' vehicle including registration cost by gross vehicle weight.
(at least that's how I understand all of this).
They never make it easy here to do anything, but people will put up with a lot of rules and taxes if it mostly happens to others.
The long-bed was popular back when people owned a truck as an extra vehicle/work vehicle only, now many use their truck as their main vehicle and have need of carrying others.
If you look at the creature comforts of older bench seat trucks (bare-bones) and the trucks sold today, a truck today will have everything an SUV will have in terms of comfort and maybe more.
My favorite configuration is:
- 8 foot bed
- extended (not full) cab
- rear doors are "suicide" doors
Our ranch truck is a Silverado 1500 in that configuration and it is nice to have optional seats but not lose the 8 foot bed. Suicide doors allow you to open the entire vehicle up with no pillar in the way and I love that.
Chevy no longer offers this but I think Ford does, currently ...
The backseat is passable with my dog and kids, but barely. If they were able to take some room from the front where there is no engine and give me both a reasonable bed and a crew cab I would be happy.
A lockable frunk is pretty attractive though so that you don't have to worry about leaving tools in the bed.
The frunk makes a big difference for those kinds of things.
Storage with the massive frunk is awesome. Lots of features around hitches and making it easier to use them and tow with them. Pretty good price point, good acceleration to appeal to the macho truck crowd who will hold their nose while making the plunge to electric so they can feel good about themselves when they floor the accelerator at stoplights and onramps.
There is something for everyone here. Yes, it plays it safe on the aesthetics side of things, but I don't see anything wrong with it. The "safer" aesthetics also make it more useful than the Cybertruck, what with the massive Frunk. Really glad to see some good competition in this space. The next 2 years are going to be really exciting in the EV space!
That could be a very useful and popular niche, construction sites without power at early phases of construction aren't rare and power tool batteries are expensive.
For a lot of truck owners, there's going to be some resistance because they love having a v8 engine etc. I don't see those people moving over quickly (although they might be swayed by the acceleration/speed). But if you're using one as a tradesperson, this seems like an absolute no-brainer. You're not driving enormous distances regularly and if you're able to run your entire job site for free, as well as have lower servicing costs... why wouldn't you?
I'm sure gas guzzler enthusiasts will continue to exist, but the financials don't make sense; it would be far cheaper for them to daily drive an EV and keep the old guzzler for fun days. They'd save on gas and maintenance by not driving an ICE all the time, and they still get to use it whenever they have free time.
In conclusion, my argument is that Ford/whoever will still eventually capture these enthusiasts, because they can still keep their old trucks but will always eventually need a new one.
Perhaps.. but we'll have to see how the battery holds up under extremely hot or cold conditions to really know if it will be used that way; and few people will want to be stuck at the job site after the end of the day.
However, even better for that kind of stuff would be a hybrid with a smaller battery, but a generator in the frunk (sort of like the Volt).
Unfortunately I don't think such a vehicle exists yet, while hybrids and even plug-in hybrids are common, they aren't designed to be used as power stations/offer multiple 110v outlets.
This new F-150 is rare in that the manufacturer actually supports its usage like this. If you use a Tesla as a glorified battery they will actually void your warranty.
I haven't seen consumer chargers that are designed to be installed outside. Most people have wall chargers in their garages, but I don't thing this is going to work for the majority of F150 home owners.
That being said, this is an otherwise incredible vehicle. The F150 is pretty much the ultimate vehicle for someone with enough space for one, and this improves upon it in nearly every way.
So outdoor charging should not be an issue.
Most can be installed outside, specially if they are hardwired. Not sure if there are any rated to be plugged in outdoor power outlets.
I have a Mustang Mach e and can't emphasize this enough. It makes tooling around my suburban enclave a pleasure as I go from 0 to 30 mph in a blink.
I entered an on-ramp with a BMW behind me. Honestly, I wasn't trying to make a point, but the BMW swung around me as we entered the highway and it was on. Then it was done. Giggle.
I'm glad I added the caveats though -- the $40K F150 is for commercial fleets, so will be missing crucial features for the passenger market and might bypass dealerships. Even so, $52K is still a competitive price for a SuperCrew with a few options.
Of course, they'll always cost more than the estimates, plus you get to throw in sales tax and the annual registration tithe to the state.
I'm always surprised that people are willing to spend so much on new vehicles but I guess it keeps the money moving through the economy. The spice must flow.
Means that you can't fix small dents with filler, have to swap panels instead.
(BTW: It seems like such an arbitrary and ultimately bad decision to cap rebates by manufacturer. Rebate caps for expensive luxury cars? Sure. But penalize a manufacturer for making _too many_ of the thing you're incentivizing doesn't seem right).
The cap should have been for the entire country so that companies like Ford can't sit back years before rolling out with an EV and gain a second movers advantage now that the tech is mature.
Another likely scenario is that Biden gets his infrastructure bill through and the credit becomes available to all US-manufactured EV's.
Not only that, but the phaseout process for rebates is VERY slow. Its likely they will still have at least some rebates until some time in 2023, even without a change in the law.
Specifically, the thing they are doing wrong is not having enough capacity to make 100K Mach-Es this year. It's not that demand isn't there, but rather the supply can't meet demand. Same problem Tesla has, just in smaller numbers on the Ford side for the time being.
The $50k Cybertruck gets you 300 miles.
If the $40K commercial use version is the right truck for a given consumer, great. But most consumers will want to step up from that for a personal vehicle. I think for most people, we will find $53K is the real starting price.
It feels as if the $40K commercial-use version was added in order to capture some headlines that group "$40K" alongside features of the more expensive trims such as "4.4 second 0 to 60," and I believe they have been successful in that.
The Cybertruck gets you nothing. It doesn't exist.
They are both large car companies who have invested billions into the development and production of these products and they will both come out next year. Anything else is just nutjob conspiracy theory nonsense.
(...in late 2022)
Not that its an issue. People focus a little too much on initial ship date, IMO.
Just a preface to say I’m not hating on Ford in particular here, but the msrp is bogus. I can nearly guarantee that the actual base on a vehicle you can actually by will be $10k higher once a dealer is involved.
Edit: side comment, wow 800 plus comments on an F150 hacker news submission. Did not see that coming ;)
It is setting customer expectations and it is competition.