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

2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

ford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#781

Post by axaxs »

giarc wrote: post #620
JeremyNT wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a 2004 Toyota Tacoma that I love, and it would be amazing with a frunk, but you can't really get small pickups that size anymore 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 ele…

The new Ford Ranger is a smaller size, but it's perhaps the worst looking truck available. I'm not sure what Ford was thinking there.

Agreed on looks - I actually declined buying one because of that.

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.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#782

Post by kevin_b_er »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #556

1. I'm really glad they didn't go with the "futuristic" look of the bmw or Volt, where extra "techie" lines create a muddled design. Just make EVs look like aerodynamic ICE vehicles, this will increase adoption rates. 2. How much power does the generator/house back-up provide? I can see it being enough for a couple tools on a jobsite, but how long will it run a refrigerator, furnace, lights, etc.? 3. In this page, Fo…

In response to 2:

One, we don't know the actual usable capacity of the pack, because Ford hasn't said. Forbes writer estimates 110-130kWh.

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/2022-ford-f-150-lightning...

Estimating home energy use per day really depends on how much heating/air conditioning you need, if your heater is gas powered or not. The fridge is like 1kWh per day. So... 100 days of just the fridge.

Mid-sized gas furnace will pull about 600W to run the forced air fan. So... 0.6 kWh per hour of runtime. You'd have to calculate the runtime given a temperature. If it is an electric furnace it'll blow through that battery quite fast.

Lights are now peanuts, because LED bulbs are about 8-10W. .12kWh per bulb per day for 12 hours of use.

Also, compare your home's electric bill for a kWh number to compare: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

Average of 877kWh per month. Of course this is averaged as you use more power depending on local weather and time of year due to heating/cooling needs. With that over-averaged value, 3.75 days to drain the battery. This is probably why Ford says about 3 days and then says "10 with conservation".

So I'd say if a family really conserved on heating/cooling, and attempted to be careful with cooking, that battery could quite easily go 10 days.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#783

Post by elihu »

throwaway413 wrote: post #505
jrsj wrote: post #233

There’s a lot of stereotyping of truck owners going on in this thread which is kind of funny given how pro-EV HN normally is. It’s like the aesthetics of a pickup truck is offensive to some people. Kind of bizarre and not something I’m used to seeing but I guess I live in Ohio so that probably has something to do with it. A lot of people just want to move stuff, they don’t want to like…burn your house down while wear…

El Camino. Problem solved.

It's a shame Truckla isn't a real product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R35gWBtLCYg

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#784

Post by vel0city »

leesec wrote: post #623
Unklejoe wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot is commonly lumped together with electric cars, but they’re really two completely unrelated things. It just so happens that one of the most popular autopilot implementations is on Tesla, but it could have just as well been implemented on an ICE car.

Agree in theory but no one has built in a similar sensor suite to Tesla or added a powerful enough computer chip in their cars. This roots back to Tesla treating the whole car like a unified piece of software and having much better programmatic control over it. I only mentioned autopilot because the leading EV does have it as an included feature and so when weighing options people might question why it's not there on…

It's not an included feature on the Teslas, it's a $10k option.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#785

Post by wearywanderer »

rootusrootus wrote: post #743
aaroninsf wrote: post #665

Hot take: this, as some like Ars Technica have observed, stands a decent chance of being a real game changer. 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 ca…

To be fair, some of these features are available on the recently released hybrid, as well. 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 returne…

Backfeeding houses with generators is indeed a killer feature... but not in the way you mean. It can be done safety, but when done incorrectly (if the house isn't removed from the grid first) it can kill linemen. It's a good thing most generators a homeowner might causally buy at the hardware store don't have this feature. Unfortunately I've seen male-to-male extension cords sold online for this purpose. I think these are actually illegal, at least in some places.

https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/elecgenerators.html

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#786

Post by rootusrootus »

ubermonkey wrote: post #192
seanalltogether wrote: post #7

I'm sure this image is heavily photoshopped, but it looks like they're trying to make a center console that's half touch screen, half physical controls. I wonder what that will look like in reality. https://www.ford.com/is/image/content/dam/vdm_ford/live/en_u...

There's no real danger of FORD, of all companies, doing something usable or well-designed here.

Well, they one-upped Tesla on their touchscreen design, so I wouldn't count them out just yet.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#787

Post by VLM »

endisneigh wrote: post #118
WillPostForFood wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advantage of a truck is you can carry more, or taller things, and they don't get the inside of your vehicle dirty. imagine you just mowed a wet, muddy lawn, do you want the mower in the back of your minivan, or in the bed of truck? Also, many tall things that you might haul in the back of truck can't simply be reposition into a minivan (tall and long or tall and many).

Ah yes, that's a good point. Other than tall or dirty objects, is there any reason to get a truck? Genuinely curious, because at some point I'll have kids and wonder what the trade-off is between minivan (more people) and truck (more hauling) is with an electric vehicle.

There's a certain lifestyle aspect where my high school friend dropped a pulled junkyard engine in the bed of his truck and shoved it into place and strapped it down and he doesn't care about the interior of his truck bed, its "outdoors" for hauling "outdoors" rated objects.

Technically my wife's van could carry that engine very easily but the process would almost certainly destroy the carpet and leather seats and maybe some windows and the bumper cover etc.

My buddy had hoists on each end of the trip to insert and remove the junkyard engine. This is widely understood in industry and construction in general and using a crane with a pickup truck is no big deal. With a van I guess you could use a forklift and pray the inevitable damage to the interior doesn't turn the vehicle into an instant insurance writeoff, but ...

Imagine for example how easy it would be to wipe out the stereo speakers or the wiring for the GPS in the back of a van vs a seemingly indestructible truck bed. The older the truck the tougher they were built and the more likely the owner doesn't care if its beat up, so you can toss bricks into trucks and similar behavior that would not be tolerated with a van.

I will say the best way to haul 1000+ pounds of yard landscape rock is to pay home depot $59.99 to have truck delivery with a forklift drop the pallet within inches of where I asked. I could have bought a $75K pickup truck and loaded and unloaded all that rock myself by hand, but sixty bucks sounds like a better deal LOL. If I had a full time landscaper job the numbers would be different...

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#788

Post by vel0city »

notJim wrote: post #660
cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No comprehensive supercharger network. This is a real big deal still. I agree- this is really going to be a big deal, especially with how large the F-150 EV battery is (150kWh). For comparison, the Chevrolet Bolt hatchback has a 66KWh battery with a similar range as the F-150, which makes sense, because the Bolt is much lighter and aerodynamic. The vast majority of public charging stations in the US ("Level 2") max…

This info seems a little out of date at this point. This is a map of 120 kW+ Electrify America charging stations from PlugShare: https://i.imgur.com/1dcM6UX.png . I agree we need more, but I don't know if it feels right to say there are "very few", when they line most of the major interstates. > These typically charge at 50kW until the battery is at 80% capacity, then slow down to 10kW or so. I'm not sure where you'r…

And as a note for everyone else, Electrify America is just one brand of chargers. Other brands currently exist and as more CCS compatible cars hit the road I imagine even more chargers will spring up.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#789

Post by throwawaypage05 »

grzm wrote: post #780
throwawaypage05 wrote: post #774

It's perplexing to me to see these one-off messages explaining a basic UI control month after month. Why not simply include a numbered page widget (i.e. "More comments: 1, 2, 3..5") at the top and bottom of the page and be done with it? If performance improvements later obviate the need for it, it can then simply be removed.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23851745 (and elsewhere) > "We're working on performance improvements that will hopefully allow us to go back to HN's original style of one big page per thread (not infinite scroll, don't worry). In the meantime please look for those 'More' links when the total number of comments is over 250 or so."

Right, that particular example was posted 10 months ago. Instead of providing manual documentation every time there is a multi-page discussion, why not let a simple UI affordance do that for you? Seems easier than repeatedly promising performance improvements for the better part of a year.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#790

Post by bhauer »

bhouser wrote: post #472
bryanlarsen wrote: post #278

I get to eat my hat somewhat. I hope it's tasty. Just a few days ago I made the comment that the Cybertruck's killer feature is it's $40K price tag, if and only if that price tag actually happens. I said that Ford could not make a decent EV F-150 at that price point unless they throw their dealerships under the bus. And here we are with a $40K EV F-150. I'm glad I added the caveats though -- the $40K F150 is for comm…

I think the $40k price tag is deceptive if you look a bit closer. The extended range 300 mile battery is only available on the Platinum edition which starts at $60k IIRC, otherwise you're stuck with 230 miles which IMO going to make the truck feel hamstringed. The $50k Cybertruck gets you 300 miles.

Yeah, the $40K version of the F150 Lightning is the "commercial use" one, which will presumably be utilitarian. I think they plan to reveal more about the commercial version on Monday.

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.

Post reply on HN