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

Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 328 posts

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#261

Post by enragedcacti »

electrondood wrote: post #244
RustyConsul wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so what you're saying is they are not only copying the good parts of Tesla (Electrification) but also the bad parts (lying about future production?). Ford made 30k electric vehicles in 2021, 600k means a growth rate of %1900 in the span of 2 1/2 years (They need to be at the run rate in 2026)? Battery packs were a problem to Tesla in 2018 and now they've moved onto the bigger problem that no one is talking about....…

Tesla hasn't ever lied about future production, not once. If you actually look at their guidance, it's "50% growth on average," and they've consistently hit it.

> In May 2016 Tesla told its suppliers that it intended to double earlier-announced[clarification needed] Model 3 production targets to 100,000 in 2017 and 400,000 in 2018 due to demand

> In October 2016 Tesla said its production timeline was on schedule.[115][116][117] Again in February 2017, Tesla said that vehicle development, supply chain and manufacturing are on track to support volume deliveries of the Model 3 in the second half of 2017.

> As of February 2017, Tesla planned to ramp up production to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week in Q4 2017 and reach 10,000 vehicles per week in 2018.[111]

> By early November 2017, Musk had postponed the target date for manufacturing 5,000 of the vehicles per week from December 2017 to March 2018.

- 100,000/yr in 2017: fail, occurred in 2018

- 400,000/yr in 2018: fail, occurred in 2020/2021

- Volume delivery in in 2H 2017: fail unless you consider 1764 to be volume

- 5000/wk in Q4 2017/March 2018: fail, produced 187/wk, probably first broke 5000/wk Q1 2019 (total quarterly rate was almost 5k/wk)

- 10,000/wk in 2018: fail 4,722/wk Q4 of 2018, probably first broke 10,000/wk at the tail end of Q3 2020 (total quarterly rate was almost 10k/wk) as long as we include model Y production as well

Now I wouldn't call this lying, but its definitely not consistently hitting production goals either

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#262

Post by knubie »

bell-cot wrote: post #67

> Automotive giant Ford is shoring up its battery supply chain — partly by importing lower-cost, iron-based batteries popular in China — as it sprints to increase electric vehicle production. Old geezer's perspective: Back in its heyday, Ford Motor was one of the most vertically integrated (large manufacturing) companies in the world. They owned and operated their own fleet of ore carriers (cargo ships), to haul iron…

> But Ford also wants to produce LFP batteries in North America, and plans to open a 40-GWh LFP cell factory by 2026. (That's in addition to three previously announced battery plants in Tennessee and Kentucky.)

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#263

Post by alexisread »

NickNameNick wrote: post #48
alexisread wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...say like a battery trailer with a CCS socket, and with extra storage as well, for long journeys? Low tech FTW. Smartrail is still a better soln but we have to be realistic here.

Will any electric car let you drive while it's plugged in? I'm pretty sure Tesla's Rivians get locked into park when the charger is connected.

I think you're correct, my Fiat certainly doesn't. That is, however a firmware update away provided the type2 or CCS protocol can distinguish between a mobile or static charger, or be extended to do so. My OP was a slightly off the cuff post to highlight the use of a trailer for say cheap city cars, rather than a removable battery.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#264

Post by throwtheacctawy »

dylan604 wrote: post #132
solarkraft wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Current-day Ford Motor having to go begging to China - for a major, iron-based component needed to produce more cars - that is laughable, and beyond pathetic. They're lucky China is answering. They're incredibly late to the EV game; considering that they're doing remarkably well.

>They're incredibly late to the EV game; considering that they're doing remarkably well. When you're not the trailblazer, it's easy to make catch-up progress to those that went before you in much much less time. Why this is constantly a source of amazement is funny to me. By the time Ford got involved, the path was no longer a beaten down path, it was fully paved 8-lane highway. Instead trying to figure out how to ma…

No post body was provided.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#265

Post by carapace »

dv_dt wrote: post #253
carapace wrote: post #246

To me it seems that batteries in EVs make less sense than e.g. alcohol fuel ICE or hybrids. The main consideration is energy density, but alcohol is easy to make and handle, carbon-neutral, and the exhaust is non-toxic. This wouldn't make sense for the whole of car traffic because we use way too much fossil fuel to replace it all with e.g. industrial ethanol. But it could work as part of a transitional strategy. Fuel…

Almost all of the energy density advantage disappears in an ICE powertrain via largely unavoidable thermodynamic loss.

I don't understand, that seems physically impossible? The engine would melt?

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#266

Post by sudosysgen »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #258
sudosysgen wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't stop trading with Taiwan supporting countries. They don't have any plans of that as far as anyone knows and never threatened it. The threat is that the US executes it's public plans of sinking ships trading with China in such a contingency.

War is hell. In WW I, the Germans didn't move to "unrestricted submarine warfare" until 1917. The fact that the CCP doesn't plan for it now means absolutely nothing.

First of all, this isn't WW1. Secondly, there is a difference between using violence to impose an embargo on someone else (what Germany did and what the US threatens to do) and embargoing yourself, which no country has ever done ever.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#267

Post by sudosysgen »

phtrivier wrote: post #255
sudosysgen wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't stop trading with Taiwan supporting countries. They don't have any plans of that as far as anyone knows and never threatened it. The threat is that the US executes it's public plans of sinking ships trading with China in such a contingency.

That will sound tongue in cheek, and to some extend it is, but if the last few years have shown us anything, it's the perils of starting a sentence by "xxx won't yyy" (for several values of x and y.)

That's an extrapolation. There hasn't ever been in a country that decided to sanction themselves within wartime from most of the world economy, and leaked documents show that one of the reason China wants Taiwan to begin with is to make their trade more secure.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#268

Post by enragedcacti »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #114
jbverschoor wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but the weight of EVs is a huge toll on the infrastructure, esp. in more historic centers

Compare the weight of a Tesla Model 3 SR (most popular version) and a BMW 3 Series (its most comparable model to the Tesla Model 3). Weight difference is negligible.

BMW sold 50,000 3-series in 2021 whereas Tesla sold 900,000+ Model 3/Ys.

Compare the Model 3 to a Camry (300k units), Civic, (260k units), Corolla (250k units), or Accord (200k units), and you'll see the lightest model 3 available weighs more than the heaviest trims of all four, and the 3 is on the lighter side of 250+ mile EVs by a pretty decent margin.

Is the BMW causing just as much road damage as a Model 3? yes.

Does the weight of the average sedan go up substantially as we convert to EV? Absolutely

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#269

Post by bonzini »

kissiel wrote: post #72
bonzini wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 kWh is less than 40 miles / 60 km. It's good enough for grocery shopping but it would be akin to always running with your fuel light on and with 1/20th of the fueling stations (ok you would charge at nighttime). I wouldn't be comfortable with that unless I am going to pay for it half of an equivalent ICE car.

I've used a PHEV with 40km of range on electric. It was 100% enough for doing daily driving. I would love to see a small town-oriented not shitboxy EV that's cheaper than fiat500/mini-e.

Sure, but it's plugin so there's a backup. The parent didn't mention plugin, and a pure electric with a 10 kWh battery might not even be enough to pick up someone at the airport or to visit a friend in the weekend.

Re: Ford's answer to EV supply chain hell: Cheaper batteries

#270

Post by bonzini »

hattmall wrote: post #241
bonzini wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 kWh is less than 40 miles / 60 km. It's good enough for grocery shopping but it would be akin to always running with your fuel light on and with 1/20th of the fueling stations (ok you would charge at nighttime). I wouldn't be comfortable with that unless I am going to pay for it half of an equivalent ICE car.

That's like 80lbs of LFP batteries, I really don't see why there isn't some easy way to add this to existing ICE cars.

Retrofitting is a completely different story, I agree.
Post reply on HN