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

Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 133 posts

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#121

Post by brailsafe »

Scoundreller wrote: post #80
giobox wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From new, you will get to 100k miles with the above on majority of decent EVs on sale. Beyond 100k, there isn't much, but you will likely need to do things like brake disc replacement or some shock work, but the costs are still minimal vs ICE car maintenance at this stage in an ICE car's lifecycle. If you do pads and discs at 100k on an EV, you will generally be good to 200k again. The shock work is no different to w…

> ICE car maintenance at this stage in an ICE car's lifecycle. What become the big ICE maintenance issues at this point? I know spark plugs can be a royal pain on some vehicles but at least iridium plugs last a very long time. (I’ll admit, I’m starting to deal with more seal leaks at 15 years. Need to track it down to avoid adding ~2L oil between my 10k mile oil change. And I’ve been neglecting trans/diff flushes) My…

On Volkswagens it's pretty typical to need to replace the timing belt and water pump because I guess those tend to fail at a higher rate after ~120k

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#122

Post by phpisthebest »

r00fus wrote: post #112
phpisthebest wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero chance the manufacturing environment can move that fast. I know I work in it. The government can place all the magic words on the page they want, there are structural limits to how fast mines, plants, and other things can be built, even if Ford, GM, VW etc can switch their factories to EV's there is an entire supply chain that can not spin up that fast. Copper and Lithium production alone would need to…

How the hell did the US (or Germany for that matter) accomplish what they did in WW2? If we treated the coming climate catastrophe as an actual crisis and waged war on carbon emissions, I'm sure as hell we could outdo what was done 80+ years ago. The problem is that now we have to coddle the corporate elite who need to make guaranteed profits. And that takes time. Hope we have enough left.

>How the hell did the US (or Germany for that matter) accomplish what they did in WW2?

By repurposing the vast majority of manifacturing cpacity to the war effrot

>>If we treated the coming climate catastrophe as an actual crisis and waged war on carbon emissions,

because one even if the US Dropped emissions to Zero it would have little impact, and two you are talking about a generational problem not a problem today. Most people disagree over the urgency of the problem, in part because have have had decades and decades of people saying we will all die in 10 years if we do not act now... 10 years later we are all still here

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#123

Post by DrThunder »

Alupis wrote: post #56
rootusrootus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are two types of F-150 buyers The F-series isn't the most popular vehicle in America because there are only two types of buyers. Roughly, the answer to "who is a truck person?" is "everyone."

You unintentionally make my point. If "everyone" is a truck person then no one is a truck person. Majority of people who own trucks do not use it as a truck... rather it's used like a glorified car or SUV. That clearly makes for two types of truck buyers, with two types of needs and wants. An electric truck is not for professionals - it's for your office commuter who likes the idea of a truck. The Lightning fits that…

The majority of truck owners do is it as a truck, they just don't use it all the time as a truck. Since vehicles are ridiculously expensive most people aren't going to purchase a separate vehicle to do none truck things.

If you buy something as useless as the f-150 lightning and try to pull your RV/boat/etc. somewhere thinking it can go any decent distance hauling stuff, you're gonna have a lot of regret.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#124

Post by DrThunder »

pornel wrote: post #110
rootusrootus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are two types of F-150 buyers The F-series isn't the most popular vehicle in America because there are only two types of buyers. Roughly, the answer to "who is a truck person?" is "everyone."

This is so weird from a non-American perspective. Almost all of these luxury truck-shaped vehicles never see a speck of dirt, and are used to carry one person and maybe a grocery bag. People drive every day in oversized vehicles with dangerously poor visibility just because they might need to carry a larger item once in a while, even though their crew cab models have barely more cargo space than hatchback. Not to men…

Your argument for having a massively oversized EV is that people won't actually use it for what it's supposedly intended for?

What's weird is trying to market something to someone spending $60k+ on a vehicle by saying you won't really use it for its intended purposes (which it can't do well) anyway so shutup and buy it.

"Buy this lesser truck that's more expensive than its ICE version."

But, I want to spend MY hard earned money on a vehicle that can do actual truck things.

"NO, you do not need an actual truck so spend $90k on this EV truck that can't go very far while towing."

Wouldn't it be better to just buy a car if I don't actually need a truck?

"No, buy this overpriced EV truck."

Solid marketing strategy. The ONLY thing ev's have an advantage at right now is the idea that they're better for the environment. By almost every other measure they're a worse product. Until they fix the issues with range they're not competing with cheaper, better ICE vehicles.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#125

Post by DrThunder »

joewadcan wrote: post #47
DrThunder wrote: post #10

Dumb. Ford's sales are mostly their F-150. Very few people want a lightning and very few can afford them. Imagine dumping $60-$100k+ on something that's worse than it's cheaper ICE version in every way. Also, the used EV market is going to be trash. These are throw away vehicles. The only way they keep selling is government force mandates and rebates.

Better towing, lower maintenance... seems like ICE vehicles are going to need the government subsidy if anyone will even want them

It doesn't tow better at all. The range is abysmal when you tow with it.

Why do all you EV diehards have to lie to push the product?

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#126

Post by DrThunder »

rootusrootus wrote: post #116
Alupis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am specifically talking about your urban/suburbanites that commute daily in their trucks, and use the bed once or twice a year for small home projects. The rest of the year, a car or SUV would be more than sufficient. The point isn't that these people should not have a truck, the point is they do not need a truck and therefore the factors that influence their purchase are different than professionals that use the t…

> I am specifically talking about your urban/suburbanites that commute daily in their trucks, and use the bed once or twice a year for small home projects. The very definition of truthy. Sounds good, even without a shred of evidence to back it up. > A professional is going to be looking for something very different than an amateur home cook. I guess. The home cook might be inclined to buy an absurdly priced knife. Th…

Buy this truck that's more expensive and arguably less good because I told you to.

It's not your money. When you have to resort to telling people they don't need a specific product with no valid reasons other than your own subjective take, you've lost. This is why the lightning will die.

I want a good reason why I would pay more for this. And no, the slight gain in being "eco-friendly" doesn't do it for me. If I cared about that I wouldn't buy a truck whether it was EV or ICE because they're both far worse for the planet than a smaller vehicle or public transport.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#127

Post by robomartin »

ender341341 wrote: post #120
robomartin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even california with all it's problem has enough capacity if there was better scheduling available to help flatten the curve. I don't think so. Not enough power. I am in CA. Power problems are already serious enough. Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K…

> Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K cars? Less than zero. With proper incentives a lot. The grid has more than enough capacity for the needed watt hours needed in any given day, so if we can get people to cool their homes down more during lulls in usage…

> The grid has more than enough capacity for the needed watt hours needed in any given day

Just want to make sure I am clear on what you are saying:

Are you saying that's the case for the cars and loads we have today? Or, are you saying we have enough for a full transition to EV's?

> Also sorry if I came off as dick-ish, I don't disagree that we should be expanding energy production

No worries. Thanks for the gesture. It indicates a desire to have a conversation, rather than wanting to throw fecal matter at each other, which, sadly, can happen even on HN with some people.

I am simply trying to understand the reality of this energy transition, rather than the many fantasies out there. When politicians make claims nobody asks the hard questions. Well, OK, I understand that most reporters don't have a clue. Most politicians don't have a clue. Which means we end-up with uncontested statements that, if repeated enough time, tend to become reality in the minds of people who will ultimately vote for this stuff in one way or another. We have to be careful that we don't make massive bets on flawed "religious" assumptions.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#128

Post by r00fus »

phpisthebest wrote: post #122
r00fus wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the hell did the US (or Germany for that matter) accomplish what they did in WW2? If we treated the coming climate catastrophe as an actual crisis and waged war on carbon emissions, I'm sure as hell we could outdo what was done 80+ years ago. The problem is that now we have to coddle the corporate elite who need to make guaranteed profits. And that takes time. Hope we have enough left.

>How the hell did the US (or Germany for that matter) accomplish what they did in WW2? By repurposing the vast majority of manifacturing cpacity to the war effrot >>If we treated the coming climate catastrophe as an actual crisis and waged war on carbon emissions, because one even if the US Dropped emissions to Zero it would have little impact, and two you are talking about a generational problem not a problem today.…

That’s ok, the US is only the biggest economy in the world. Of course we can’t do it on our own but we can lead the way - or we can get lapped by China who has already begun and made significant progress in all the areas we should also be doing: solar installments, EVs, fast mass transit.

It’s no surprise the rest of the world is starting to look to China for leadership instead of us.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#129

Post by Alupis »

rootusrootus wrote: post #116
Alupis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am specifically talking about your urban/suburbanites that commute daily in their trucks, and use the bed once or twice a year for small home projects. The rest of the year, a car or SUV would be more than sufficient. The point isn't that these people should not have a truck, the point is they do not need a truck and therefore the factors that influence their purchase are different than professionals that use the t…

> I am specifically talking about your urban/suburbanites that commute daily in their trucks, and use the bed once or twice a year for small home projects. The very definition of truthy. Sounds good, even without a shred of evidence to back it up. > A professional is going to be looking for something very different than an amateur home cook. I guess. The home cook might be inclined to buy an absurdly priced knife. Th…

> The very definition of truthy. Sounds good, even without a shred of evidence to back it up.

This is comical. It's not even a real dispute to assert most truck owners don't use any of the truck functions. Owning a truck in the US is more of a status symbol than anything.

> I guess. The home cook might be inclined to buy an absurdly priced knife. The pro and competent home cooks both will reach for a basic Victorinox knife for everyday use.

You unintentionally make my point again.

> Most work trucks are driven around town. There's a niche for people who travel hundreds of miles in a day, but it's not the most common use case at all.

For a work truck, loaded with gear and whatever in the back, the Lightning is objectively a poor choice. It's range is awful, and no working truck is going to acceptably sit at the local Walmart for 3 hours charging mid-day either.

The Lightning is for a very particular type of truck buyer - the ones that don't actually need a truck but want a truck.

There's nothing wrong with that... but recognizing there's different types of buyers and products in the market should not be controversial.

Re: Ford to spend $1.3B to transform Canada factory into EV manufacturing hub

#130

Post by ender341341 »

robomartin wrote: post #127
ender341341 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scheduling is one of those things that sounds great on paper. What do you think are the chances of people who do not own EV's having any interest in being regulated to help people buying $50K to $120K cars? Less than zero. With proper incentives a lot. The grid has more than enough capacity for the needed watt hours needed in any given day, so if we can get people to cool their homes down more during lulls in usage…

> The grid has more than enough capacity for the needed watt hours needed in any given day Just want to make sure I am clear on what you are saying: Are you saying that's the case for the cars and loads we have today? Or, are you saying we have enough for a full transition to EV's? > Also sorry if I came off as dick-ish, I don't disagree that we should be expanding energy production No worries. Thanks for the gesture…

> Are you saying that's the case for the cars and loads we have today? Or, are you saying we have enough for a full transition to EV's?

Pretty much yes to the second, or at least from reading several interviews with heads of utilities it's not EVs that they're worried about, it's the massively exploding amount of energy being used for AC as things have heated up and are expected to continue to as that can eat away at the capacity during otherwise lulls.

I think scheduling should also have a massive disclaimer on it that it's not about static schedules, it's about the grid being able to dynamically tell the chargers when to charge or not, and with enough of those EVs can actually help the grid because instead of spinning up powerplants and burning fuel (and money) in anticipation of peaks they can ramp them up and actually use the electricity and easily & safely shed load as peak picks up.

If utilities don't act on getting the ability to dynamically tell chargers when to charge and expand their programs to help get people to think of houses as thermal batteries to manage peak then no there isn't enough, but those are things that utilities have been pretty actively working on, it's just not as visible as new powerplants. It'd also help if dealer salespeople were more familiar with some of this stuff as mine didn't really know much and I ended up sending him a bunch of stuff about the local utilities programs so he can hopefully tell future buyers (it's mostly stuff like setting up charging schedules (they've only rolled out the dynamic charge scheduling for a small test group so far so currently only static) that they then give discounts for a few months)

Other random notes that came into my head as I was writing: * Most smart chargers already support a standard that allows utilities to do this, so it isn't a case of once utilities get around to it everyone needs to upgrade their chargers, they should just be able to just authenticate.

* to make sure it's clear I'm not suggesting they should say "You can't charge during these periods", but should be offering discounts for not doing so and allowing simple overrides at the charger.

* I'm also super excited to see what happens with vehicle to load in the coming years as I think that could be a massive boon to grid stability (similar to tesla's virtual power plant program but I expect magnitude more EVs than home battery systems)

Post reply on HN