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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#911

Post by fma »

leesec wrote: post #230

I'm really happy Ford and others are starting to actually deliver on EV's. I do however think there will be a long list of issues as they scale the roll out, given the newness and complexity of this product. Here are some concerns I think people should be aware of: 1. No comprehensive supercharger network. This is a real big deal still. Using existing non-supercharging networks is not feasible for any long distance.…

I don't think many people will be driving an EV Ford F-150 cross country.

Minivan...yes. SUV yes. Work truck, not likely.

If people have the occasional need to drive cross country, just rent a gas vehicle till the infrastructure is there. Till then it's just fear mongering causes a slower adoption of EV, which means a slower rollout of a national network.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#912

Post by fukmbas »

kingsuper20 wrote: post #466
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 expect that a real advantage to an EV F150 over any Tesla truck (or car) will be repair costs, most particularly collision repairs. Of course, they'll always cost more than the estimates, plus you get to throw in sales tax and the annual registration tithe to the state. I'm always surprised that people are willing to spend so much on new vehicles but I guess it keeps the money moving through the economy. The spice…

Any collision is going to be totalled..it all crumples

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#913

Post by tclancy »

seem_2211 wrote: post #383
Someone1234 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could legitimately see every job site having at least one as a rolling power station. That could be a very useful and popular niche, construction sites without power at early phases of construction aren't rare and power tool batteries are expensive.

I would be really interested in understanding the breakdown in F150's as sold by model number. For a lot of truck owners, there's going to be some resistance because they love having a v8 engine etc. I don't see those people moving over quickly (although they might be swayed by the acceleration/speed). But if you're using one as a tradesperson, this seems like an absolute no-brainer. You're not driving enormous dista…

Man, pipes and noise can be nice, but people who really like a v8 will also love the lack of a torque curve.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#914

Post by rainbowzootsuit »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #831
wearywanderer wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thes…

> Backfeeding houses with generators is indeed a killer feature... oh, you mean like solar PV on-grid setups ...

All of the grid tied solar systems are able to conform to the IEEE 1547 standard. Amongst the particulars are a 300 second reconnection time if there's an interrupted grid to protect utility workers. Most (all?) USA utilities mandate this standard.

Some battery systems, like the Tesla Powerwall include a contactor that allow their microgrid battery systems to conform to the standard without a loss of power to the site they power.

https://standards.ieee.org/standard/1547-2018.html

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#915

Post by carlivar »

pmorici wrote: post #891
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…

The features and specs feel mediocre compared to CyberTruck. The only thing that looked perhaps better was the frunk size and access but everything else CyberTruck is clearly better even price and most definitely on the most important spec of all, range.

The Cybertruck is coming from a leader with a history of hasty, half baked communication. If you think the Cybertruck will be out this year or exactly as pictured and specified... well I think that is extremely unlikely.

A production prototype doesn't even exist yet.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#916

Post by rasz »

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…

>vehicle launch

Product launch is when something is released and you can buy it, not when someone published plans and best wishes.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#917

Post by carlivar »

outworlder wrote: post #776
reedjosh wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

regarding 2. Why are companies not putting out electric gas hybrids that use a tuned generator as a backup source of energy like the Chevy Volt did? (I suspect then the vehicle wouldn't qualify for subsidies) It's crazy to me, as it adds maybe 300 lbs to the vehicle and provides all the benefits of electric, but with the potential range of gas. I find electric vehicles as a technology highly appealing, but current of…

The Volt was "hybrid done right". It was 90% an EV, it just had backup generation, which didn't even have to provide that much power. It can run at a constant (optimal) speed, with the variability absorbed by batteries. It doesn't take that much power to maintain speed in cruise, as opposed to accelerating. No complicated drive train either. The Prius drivetrain is an engineering marvel, but looks complicated to me.…

Completely agree about the Volt. PHEVs are ideal, and best for the environment. Who cares if you have to use gas a couple times a month for longer ranges if you don't need to mine so much lithium and cobalt for the battery?

Cutting gas usage by 80% should be considered essentially equivalent to 100%. And the lower electric range of PHEVs is likely offset by lack of range anxiety and potentially greater adoption.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#918

Post by Kerrick »

earth_walker wrote: post #899
rootusrootus wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, I'm totally into that. It's perfect for a grocery run and you don't need to do anything to keep it from rolling around the bed of the truck or get rained on.

Taking a pickup for a grocery run is like using a jackhammer to push in a thumbtack.

I own a cow. Because I own a cow, I often need to get bales of hay from the local co-op. I need a bed (or a trailer) to bring those back to the farm. A pickup can do this.

I grow vegetables. Because I grow vegetables, I occasionally need to pick up a yard of compost. I need a bed to bring that back to the farm. A pickup can do this, too.

I own a tractor. Because I own a tractor, I need to be able to tow said tractor to the nearest dealer or machine shop to get it serviced and repaired. I need a vehicle that can tow a trailer carrying multi-thousand-pound many-foot-long tractor + loader + three-point implement setup. A pickup can do this, too.

I cook using ingredients I don't grow myself. Because I cook, I need to be able to buy groceries. I need a vehicle to bring as many groceries as I buy at once back to my house. Would you really suggest that if I already have a pickup for the above three needs, I should keep a second non-pickup vehicle around just to run to the supermarket, the doctor, or local watering hole?

That's a lot of expense when I could just have a general-purpose vehicle that does it all. HN seems to be all about general-purpose computers that can do more than you might need day-to-day. The same can apply to vehicles.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#919

Post by blake1 »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #795
zip1234 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trucks are more dangerous to pedestrians because of the higher and flatter front--means people end up underneath rather than above if they are struck. I understand why they kept the look the same and why they used that space but in the future would prefer that they made changes to make it safer for everyone and not just the occupants. The high hoods make for poor visibility around the front.

Every single near-miss I've had while walking in Minneapolis has been due to the driver not paying attention. There wasn't a single time it was due to lack of visibility from inside the vehicle. My yelling at one driver who was staring at her phone while driving out of a parking ramp and across the sidewalk where she nearly hit me, probably woke her up enough to avoid driving into traffic and being hit by a bus! No,…

Second this. Even in the most bike- or pedestrian-friendly neighborhood of Minneapolis, all of the near miss experiences I’ve had have been because of driver inattentiveness. Is there some tautology here—with truck drivers and pedestrians frequenting disjoint geographies? Certainly.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#920

Post by serf »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #795
zip1234 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trucks are more dangerous to pedestrians because of the higher and flatter front--means people end up underneath rather than above if they are struck. I understand why they kept the look the same and why they used that space but in the future would prefer that they made changes to make it safer for everyone and not just the occupants. The high hoods make for poor visibility around the front.

Every single near-miss I've had while walking in Minneapolis has been due to the driver not paying attention. There wasn't a single time it was due to lack of visibility from inside the vehicle. My yelling at one driver who was staring at her phone while driving out of a parking ramp and across the sidewalk where she nearly hit me, probably woke her up enough to avoid driving into traffic and being hit by a bus! No,…

>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.

people being distracted isn't a new feature; people being given distractions in the cabin is.

I'm not sure exactly what your argument is, to be quite frank.

Are you insinuating that less visibility isn't hindering the ability to drive safely?

There are additional devices commonplace in vehicles to make up for the lack of visibility -- pedestrian detection/auto-braking/switching cameras for example -- but surely a car would be safer to both pedestrians and the passengers if it had those types of features along with increased visibility..

>No, it's not the vehicles, it's the people driving them.

As a former auto mechanic, maybe i'm over-exposed.. but :

1) car interior design changes yearly, and it's usually to sate consumer desires rather than for safety/usability/efficiency.

2) mechanical failures aren't rare. mechanical failures that may end in injury or loss-of-life aren't rare, either.

The DoD has done tons of usability studies with regards to UI/UX. If auto manufacturers wanted a safe/repeatable/efficient environment then the interiors would probably share a lot of features with fighter jets; tactile buttons, audio cues, correct information density, etc.

They don't look anything like this -- this is a clue to the consumer that there are different priorities in mind at the manufactures' HQ, namely lately ICE (in-car entertainment, not internal combustion engine; sorry for possible confusion) and technological glitz like RGB lighting.

Post reply on HN