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

Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 570 posts

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#381

Post by WatchDog »

assttoasstmgr wrote: post #355
jfim wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they have the margins that allows them to pay equivalent salaries? From what I recall, Meta and Google have gross revenues on the order of one million in revenue per employee, while SAP AG has revenue per employee around 200k.

This. The OP wrote: > They tried to lowball him badly. Like 1/2 the rate he asked for (contract) and probably 1/3rd or 1/4 what we made at Google FAANG arrogance never ceases to amaze me. It's like these guys live in a different universe blissfully unaware of the world around them. Did it ever occur to him maybe Ford is paying normal average human salaries and not grossly inflated Google wages? Remember Ford (and thi…

I agree mostly with your points, other than when you get into how much the cars cost.

The unit price of the cars isn't really relevant to the cost of developing it's software. A low cost model that moves sells a lot of units, can likely afford to spend more on software compared to a high cost model that moves only a few units.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#382

Post by josephcsible »

vanilla_nut wrote: post #244
throwaway894345 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an interesting observation that I hadn’t considered. My enthusiasm for EVs has been pretty unmitigated previously. I still think climate is important enough that dealing with the safety stuff is probably tractable and also the lesser evil, but it’s good to have line of sight on it.

Unmitigated ? Are you not worried about the infrastructure impact of doubling the weight of most classes of vehicle?

A Tesla Model 3 weighs 3,582 lbs. Even if you chose a Smart Fortwo (1,984lb) as your comparison instead of an equivalent-size ICE vehicle, it's still not doubling the weight.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#383

Post by clouddrover »

jws wrote: post #369
clouddrover wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Non tesla fast charging is an absolute disaster Doesn't seem to be. Tesla's chargers have been behind the curve versus others with lower speeds, still only 400 volts, and only supporting one brand of car. Tesla is at least slowly starting to support other brands: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y33AArvMUQ But Circle K, Gridserve, Ionity, etc. are better charging stops with faster chargers: - Circle K: https://ww…

Not my side of the pond, but clicking around on Gridserve I'm only seeing a maximum charge rate of 60kW. I haven't found a Circle K above 50kW. Ionity has chargers that go to 350kW. For comparison, Tesla superchargers are 150kW or 250kW. That metric shouldn't be interpreted linearly. You only really saturate a charger for the first few minutes of a charge when fairly depleted. Above 15% to 40% of your battery capacit…

> Gridserve I'm only seeing a maximum charge rate of 60kW

No, Gridserve has 350 kW and 90 kW chargers in their new forecourts (see the videos). The 60 kW chargers you're seeing are from Gridserve's acquisition of Ecotricity:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/gridserve-a...

Ionity's chargers are all 350 kW:

https://ionity.eu/en/network/network-status

> As an example, a 2022 Lucid Air Dream Edition can use 350kW chargers. Going 20% to 80% on a 350kW is 31 minutes

And that's a big battery with a conservative charge curve for its size. A Hyundai Ioniq 5 can do 10 to 80% in 18 minutes on a 350 kW charger. A Porsche Taycan and an Audi e-tron GT (same platform) can do 10 to 80% in 19 minutes:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gxcukAhIAU

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BhDiwHxa94

And in a few years with newer battery chemistries more cars will be able to take more advantage of 350 kW chargers.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#384

Post by cbozeman »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #302
AlotOfReading wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of these traditional manufacturing OEMs have software outfits in the bay that clutter up my LinkedIn inbox. They're usually offering 130-170k with limited to no additional compensation in the same cities where FAANG is paying 100k+ over their rates in base alone. It's not just that they're doing silly regional surveys, they have fundamental misunderstandings of market rates.

My brother-in-law is pretty high up at a traditional manufacturing OEM. To be clear, they don't manufacture anything that has electronics or software in it (but there is a pretty decent chance your car has something they made). They have a Bay Area software office that does general tech stuff - manufacturing software, business software, etc. Internal things plus some B2C stuff for people buying/installing replacement…

> Oh, we don't do it for the software. We can hire 100 people out of Ohio State or Michigan and pay them midwest wages and get the same quality.

No they can't... or they would.

Deeds. Not words.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#385

Post by xeromal »

jfim wrote: post #380
xeromal wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a few specific examples in mind, but my brother does tile and he's often carrying a load of tile, a saw, etc 50-60 miles in traffic to jobs. Sometimes he hauls a trailer with even more gear for bigger jobs and with that trailer, you're looking at 1/3 the range of the battery which gives it about 100 miles which isn't really conducive to those long trips. Even if those jobs are only 2-3x a year, that truck is p…

Gotcha, makes sense. Thanks for sharing, it's good to see things from outside the SV bubble.

No worries, I'm aware that there are plenty of use cases for the truck, but for the people who actually use trucks, I don't think it makes a great one. The range for towing pretty much cuts the battery to 1/3 and that's just extremely limited unless you're a commute is 30 miles or so and you have a great charger at home. It takes a lot of flexibility if you have to run to home Depot to grab some extra wood or something too if you're really worried about your range. Diesel trucks can just go forever.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#386

Post by irrational »

flir wrote: post #243
usefulcat wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would probably still cost more than what they’re willing to pay, assuming that (cost) is indeed the problem.

I've found that paying companies a big pile of cash to do a thing is much more acceptable than paying an individual a big pile of cash to do the same thing. I don't know why. Risk management maybe.

If the person is a full time employee you have to pay benefits and you can’t just fire them when the project is done. Easier to just contract it out.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#387

Post by m-ee »

ghostpepper wrote: post #202
PaulWaldman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mazda is apparently taking the right approach here -- increasing the tactile buttons on the dash and console, and ditching touchscreens. Huh? After using both Ford's (2022 Explorer) and Mazda's (2022 CX-7) infotainment systems recently for several weeks, I couldn't disagree more. Android Auto and CarPlay interfaces were designed for touchscreen control. Mazda forcing the use of a wheel, like a joystick is a safety h…

Mazda provides physical buttons for 90% of the controls you need on a daily basis but there's no realistic way to use apple carplay without looking at a screen. Were you expecting mazda to have a "Search for a song" dedicated button on the steering wheel? In my view Mazda's modern interface is almost as safe as you can get while still having modern features that require a touchscreen. I only wish there was a button t…

There’s a way to put it into developer mode and unlock it, but I haven’t bothered since I like the wheel better.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#388

Post by kelnos »

assttoasstmgr wrote: post #355
jfim wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they have the margins that allows them to pay equivalent salaries? From what I recall, Meta and Google have gross revenues on the order of one million in revenue per employee, while SAP AG has revenue per employee around 200k.

This. The OP wrote: > They tried to lowball him badly. Like 1/2 the rate he asked for (contract) and probably 1/3rd or 1/4 what we made at Google FAANG arrogance never ceases to amaze me. It's like these guys live in a different universe blissfully unaware of the world around them. Did it ever occur to him maybe Ford is paying normal average human salaries and not grossly inflated Google wages? Remember Ford (and thi…

I think that's besides the point. If a qualified developer can get paid more elsewhere, they'll go elsewhere, and Ford will end up with marginally- or un-qualified developers. That's just how the job market works.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#389

Post by m-ee »

ubermonkey wrote: post #116
andrewla wrote: post #14

Generally speaking the horrifying quality of Ford's electronics have been enough to keep me away from even considering purchasing one. Absolutely nothing works right and certainly nothing works well. It may or may not be able to connect bluetooth, it may or may not acknowledge a USB device, it may or may not start blaring whatever FM station was last tuned in for no reason on startup, or start playing the first album…

>Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are okay-ish, but frankly I find the experience of just having the phone on a mount and using that as the display to be far superior in almost every way. That's super confusing to me. How is that superior to the larger presentation of (e.g.) CarPlay that has (a) bigger touch targets and (b) an automatically filtered presentation of apps relevant to driving? I find CarPlay to be so good…

Zooming in and out on the map is a disaster on CarPlay compared to the phone google maps app. The fact that you can’t keep the map on the cars screen while using other apps is also frustrating and a weird design choice. I’d consider that a killer feature over just using a phone but they chose not to do it. I only use CarPlay in rental cars because it is better than figuring out whatever half baked solution the manufacturer came up with. But for my own car I’m happier with my phone on a mount.

Re: Ford F-150 Lightning: Fast Truck, Slow Computer

#390

Post by dillondoyle »

ghostpepper wrote: post #202
PaulWaldman wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mazda is apparently taking the right approach here -- increasing the tactile buttons on the dash and console, and ditching touchscreens. Huh? After using both Ford's (2022 Explorer) and Mazda's (2022 CX-7) infotainment systems recently for several weeks, I couldn't disagree more. Android Auto and CarPlay interfaces were designed for touchscreen control. Mazda forcing the use of a wheel, like a joystick is a safety h…

Mazda provides physical buttons for 90% of the controls you need on a daily basis but there's no realistic way to use apple carplay without looking at a screen. Were you expecting mazda to have a "Search for a song" dedicated button on the steering wheel? In my view Mazda's modern interface is almost as safe as you can get while still having modern features that require a touchscreen. I only wish there was a button t…

When will amazon put an echo branded voice prompt car control in? Or whoever.

If it works well it seems like a great solution. Talking on the phone is distracting, but feels less so than trying to find touchscreen areas.

Post reply on HN