Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

freep.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 284 posts

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#271

Post by graycat »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #243
graycat wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the Ford 150 and the Chevy 1500 or some such are called light trucks because there are also much heavier trucks, big Diesel engines, maybe dual wheels on the back, able to tow a small yacht, etc. Typically can get a list of the possible options and dealer's price for each, develop a list of just what want with the dealer's cost, and then take an afternoon and do a search for a dealer who will give you the best pr…

Sorry, anything bigger than the F350 I drove on the farm in the 70s is not a light truck. And I've never understood the appeal of SUVs. For under half the price you can get a Dodge Caravan that will actually hold a full sheet of plywood.

> Sorry, anything bigger than the F350 I drove on the farm in the 70s is not a light truck.

Agree. I was saying why a Ford 150 is called a light truck, right, because the 350, etc. are larger.

> And I've never understood the appeal of SUVs. For under half the price you can get a Dodge Caravan that will actually hold a full sheet of plywood.

The SUV I bought was a Chevy Blazer. At the time on the same chassis there was a pickup version. I hoped that it would be more rugged than a passenger car. Partly it has been. I wish it had been still more rugged and done a LOT better on corrosion protection.

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#272

Post by bryanlarsen »

graycat wrote: post #271
bryanlarsen wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, anything bigger than the F350 I drove on the farm in the 70s is not a light truck. And I've never understood the appeal of SUVs. For under half the price you can get a Dodge Caravan that will actually hold a full sheet of plywood.

> Sorry, anything bigger than the F350 I drove on the farm in the 70s is not a light truck. Agree. I was saying why a Ford 150 is called a light truck , right, because the 350, etc. are larger. > And I've never understood the appeal of SUVs. For under half the price you can get a Dodge Caravan that will actually hold a full sheet of plywood. The SUV I bought was a Chevy Blazer. At the time on the same chassis there w…

The 1969 f350 is smaller than the 2019 f150

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#273

Post by zaroth »

kstrauser wrote: post #140
zaroth wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the bags are reusable , so it’s not so much “Whole Foods bags” as it is, “bags of Whole Foods groceries”.

I dunno. I’ve got a lot of bags. The kernel of truth in that: stores are required to charge for bags here (East Bay outside of SF). We have a bag of shopping bags - the “meta bag” - in our trunk so that we always have plenty available.

Gosh, I was really hoping your OP was sarcasm!

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#274

Post by sjwright »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #239
sjwright wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All true but again, I don't trust VAG as a company so I'm not inclined to purchase any of their products. I personally know too many people burned by their various catastrophes with their DSG gearboxes and diesel engines that I'd simply be too scared to hand over my money.

That's interesting, they are perceived as a quality/aspirational brand in the UK.

They are here as well (Australia) among some people but their reputation for reliability and longevity is trash among many segments of commentator and consumer.

Mazda has an unusually strong footprint in Australia, particularly for hatchbacks and crossovers.

Most non-German European brands are very unpopular, selling in relatively minuscule numbers.

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#275

Post by SECProto »

EADGBE wrote: post #269
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is definitely some shitting going on. It’s the same argument people make when they say people buy Apple products because they are a status symbol. And honestly, NEED is a dumb question. You can ask do you NEED just about anything. No, it’s not strictly a need, and neither is anything else nerds regularly spend their money on. All of what we buy lands somewhere on a spectrum of Need-Convenient-Frivolous, and peo…

Shitting-on always happens here when pickups are brought up. Silicon Valley - I mean HN - won't know what to do with itself when most trucks go electric.

Shitting on pickups in urban environments is the same as shitting on sedans in a rural environment - it isn't the tool best fitted for the job, generally. HN may shit on trucks more as a result of who is posting here, but it isn't an intrinsic wrong.

trucks going electric will be great for the same reason every vehicle going electric is great - it reduces dependence on fossil fuels, it reduces carbon dioxide emissions, it makes the outlook for the future less of a defeating thing!

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#276

Post by geggam »

beatgammit wrote: post #253
geggam wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not viable for most of the country truck uses. Charging stations would have to be immediate and portable. Being 3 miles out in the fields and having battery go dead because you were pulling something would be damned inconvenient

I thought the majority of the pickup uses were pretty short range, such as: - farmers driving around their property - construction workers bringing supplies to the work site - landscapers hitting a few customers in the same city Since trucks have a large frame, there should be quite a bit of space for the batteries. I'm thinking that many of the places trucks are used will have electricity available at the destinatio…

That 150 miles assumes certain things. Like not towing 8,000lb plus loads around in less than ideal traction.

Your mileage on a farm can sometimes be several gallons to the mile.

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#277

Post by richjdsmith »

_0w8t wrote: post #245
richjdsmith wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>trucks are just not very good in winter with snow and ice on mountain roads Canadian here who drives a truck in the snowy mountain roads, I'm pretty confused by this. Why do you say they are not good? There is nothing I'd rather be in than an F350 with studded tires and four-wheel drive on the highway when the road conditions go bad.

I meant a typical truck without 4-wheel drive. 4-wheels are much more expensive in Norway due to taxes. But there is another problem with trucks. It rains a lot in Norway especially on the west coast and in mountains. And it really sucks to load-transport-unload without the roof under the rain. Most trailers here are with the roof for this reason.

Interesting that 4WD is taxed differently. Is this due to fuel consumption reasons?

On your last point, are truck canopies not common in Norway? Something like this: https://canopy-world.com/

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#278

Post by _0w8t »

richjdsmith wrote: post #277
_0w8t wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant a typical truck without 4-wheel drive. 4-wheels are much more expensive in Norway due to taxes. But there is another problem with trucks. It rains a lot in Norway especially on the west coast and in mountains. And it really sucks to load-transport-unload without the roof under the rain. Most trailers here are with the roof for this reason.

Interesting that 4WD is taxed differently. Is this due to fuel consumption reasons? On your last point, are truck canopies not common in Norway? Something like this: https://canopy-world.com/

Taxes on cars in Norway depend strongly on fuel consumption and engine power.

Canopies are really rare. What is typical is vans or cargo vans in all sizes. That is, something with a roof and front-wheel drive. As roads here are good, there is little point in high-rised cars. And on icy roads or with snow good winter tires are much more important than 4WD.

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#279

Post by Infernal »

StillBored wrote: post #256
Infernal wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know why this is exactly, but it seems useful interior space is decreasing across all vehicles as dashes get bigger and curvier and more surrounding. I’ve driven my 2008 Honda Fit for 10 years, but the second and third gen models, while bigger and heavier, have less driver legroom due to big curvy dashboards and controls bulging in towards the driver. I can’t drive the ‘09 or later Fits, it’s physically impos…

I'm tall too, and noticed the same thing. I drove a fox body mustang in the early 90's, but every styling change since has reduced the amount of interior head/leg room. A couple years back I had a hard time even as a passenger in one. I couldn't even get my legs under the dash due to the angle it was positioned at relative to the seat. I suspect at least part of it has to do with fuel economy standards which are part…

Interesting theory re: reduced frontal area. In college I drove an E28 ('82-'88 5-series) BMW, which were pretty darn small cars, and I actually was fine in it for over a year before I even realized it had a telescoping steering column, which made it even better!

As my height is mostly in my legs, I don't notice the head room issues as much, but I notice across all three vehicles I've mentioned, they all have very minimalist dashboards, basically a flat slab sloped away from the cabin as you descend with some knobs on it. I could hang my right knee out in that space in front of the controls and over the gear shift if I wanted to stretch or twist, and all that is taken up by super tall consoles, or climate control panels that jut out and tilt toward the driver now.

Since you mentioned Mustangs though, I had this same issue in the '96-'04 generation of Mustangs, but on the driver side. The way the door handle assembly curved inward toward the driver to meet the dash made actually quite a small space between the door and the steering wheel. If I put my left hand at 9 o'clock on the wheel, it was physically impossible for me to raise my left leg high enough to work the clutch, as the combo of wheel/hand/door blocked my knee from coming up as high as it needed.

I wonder if this is some sort of "perception of safety" design, as all these spaces I'm talking about would normally be empty and useless with an average driver, and so these big interior panels are growing into those spaces, perhaps to enhance the feeling of being cocooned and secured by the vehicle? Similarly center consoles keep getting taller as well. Just a thought.

Re: 'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

#280

Post by EADGBE »

SECProto wrote: post #275
EADGBE wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shitting-on always happens here when pickups are brought up. Silicon Valley - I mean HN - won't know what to do with itself when most trucks go electric.

Shitting on pickups in urban environments is the same as shitting on sedans in a rural environment - it isn't the tool best fitted for the job, generally. HN may shit on trucks more as a result of who is posting here, but it isn't an intrinsic wrong. trucks going electric will be great for the same reason every vehicle going electric is great - it reduces dependence on fossil fuels, it reduces carbon dioxide emission…

I'm certainly looking forward to the electrification of vehicles. I hope it isn't a cash grab for utility companies though, and I really hope that we move more towards non-toxic energy sources or it'll really be a moot movement.

(Also, we're only a small part of the world, it needs to bleed into every other market, too)

Post reply on HN