2022 Ford F-150 Lightning • Hacker News Board

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#931

Post by brianwawok » Sat, May 22, 2021, 3:48 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #870

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…

Yes you definitely have to get it installed by a licensed electrician (and possibly approved then by the local utility) if you are going to backfeed your own house. It is good that people are aware of the risk, but in reality the risk is quite low. It is standard procedure for a lineman to ground a line he's about to work on, to mitigate the risk of any power source feeding it. But I'd never advocate a DIY setup. But…

I do hear this kill a lineman a lot as soon as any talk goes into backup power.

How many linemen are killed a year in the US due to backup generators or similar? Are there no procedures they can do to work on lines safer?

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#932

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 22, 2021, 3:53 AM UTC

raspasov wrote: post #821

outworlder wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No comprehensive supercharger network. Agreed. I've been driving a Leaf since 2015 (two different generations by now) and the main reason that makes road trips unpalatable is NOT range. Not at all. Charging more often? Sure, whatever. Unless it's a business trip or a trip across the country it's fine. I've discovered some stuff I'd probably would never have otherwise, by routing via chargers in small towns. No, the…

>>> US highway speeds are crazy Crazy as in high or low? I-5 between San Francisco and LA is about ~70mph limit. That's ~113km/h. A lot of highways in Europe are often at 130km/h sometimes going up to 140km/h limit. P.S. And if you think those limits are even remotely observed, try a road trip in Italy or Bulgaria :P

[deleted]

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#933

Post by brianwawok » Sat, May 22, 2021, 3:57 AM UTC

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #830

gilbetron wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I was most excited about, and agree it is a game changer. Hopefully we can get small e-pickups at some point - 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.

The first thing that we need to change about the perception of these vehicles is we have to stop calling them e-pickups. Because e usually means economy. And economy means cheap and flimsy and no legroom. People who are buying Ford pickups don't want cheap and flimsy and no legroom. Just call it a pickup.

E means electric

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#934

Post by therealdrag0 » Sat, May 22, 2021, 4:09 AM UTC

mlac wrote: post #927

skynet-9000 wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people buy pickups currently probably don't really think CO2 emissions are a big deal, but perhaps there's an undiscovered pickup market that Ford's going to tap into; perhaps an urbanite who normally wouldn't consider a pickup but thought the Cybertruck looked interesting.

I’m a Subaru driver who wants my next car to be electric or hybrid electric… this appeals to me. I’ve liked trucks before but I have not been able to justify the cost. Pretty much all EVs are in the same ball park now (40K-50k for dual motor), so it’s going into the comparison against a model 3, model y, and others that will be on the market at that time. The F150 itself has great features (quiet ride), then pile on…

What about Rav4 Prime?

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#935

Post by tedd4u » Sat, May 22, 2021, 4:18 AM UTC

fvdessen wrote: post #270

mkoryak wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

because it looks stupid

Maybe CT style will prove attractive in the market, but I think Tesla could have designed something more like the Rivian pickup. i.e. F-150 inspired but modern Tesla styling.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#936

Post by tfehring » Sat, May 22, 2021, 4:19 AM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #886

jaywalk wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you possibly cram everything that's controlled via the touchscreen into physical controls?

It isn't to say "All menu items are strictly button based" like the space shuttle or something. It means that the screen will not be touch-based. This often means a large knob that one can turn, use as a joystick (up down left right) and push in for selection. This knob is used for navigating the majority of the console. There are some unique buttons and knobs for things like volume, climate, etc.

This is what my Mazda does, it's perfect. The big knob does exactly what you describe, where turning the knob scrolls. There's also a small dedicated volume knob that you can push in for mute and left/right to change tracks, and dedicated home and back buttons next to the big knob. All easy to use without looking.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#937

Post by whatever1 » Sat, May 22, 2021, 4:21 AM UTC

rhodozelia wrote: post #725

whatever1 wrote: post #353

The owners will be caught off guard with the horrible range for truck activities (towing, driving in rough terrain, climbing hills, carrying cargo). On the other hand I suspect that significant fraction of the trucks are just used for commuting in flat suburbia so range will not matter.

Why would low speed high torque operation be bad for range? Are the electric motors less efficient at lower speeds? Hill climbing and off roading probably has bad gas mileage too?

It is easy to understand. Think about trying to pedal your bike in the mud with 5mph. You will run out of energy way earlier compared to biking on perfect, flat tarmac with 10mph.

To overcome friction, you need additional energy. The electric F150 comes with ~3.7 gal equiv. of gasoline worth of energy. The gas powered comes with ~25 gal tank.

If we assume 90% efficiency for the electric motor and 25% for the gasoline, you get:

electric F150: 3.3 gal equivalent available to move the car

gas F150: 6.25 gal equivalent available to move the car

The gas-powered stores effectively double the amount of energy, if the two cars have equal weight and aerodynamics, the gas powered will have 2ble range.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#938

Post by adventured » Sat, May 22, 2021, 4:31 AM UTC

carlivar wrote: post #915

pmorici wrote: post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Cybertruck is going to end up being a sales disaster after the initial sensationalism rapidly wears off. Sales will fade, it'll end up as a gimmick. Large numbers of consumers don't want to drive/use/own something that looks like that, they want something that looks like a normal truck.

Cybertruck is Musk's equivalent of the Mac G4 Cube ego mistake, except far worse. He understood that electric vehicles should look like existing conceptions of vehicles, things people can easily identify with as being vehicles they'd want to drive, but electric and maybe sexy + better in various boring functional ways. He abandoned that with the Cybertruck, and it'll bomb accordingly over time. Meanwhile Ford will sell a bazillion electric trucks, and humiliate Tesla's efforts in the space (in his inability to be humble, Musk will fall back on claiming Cybertruck is superior, even as it doesn't sell very well).

Tesla should have acquired Ford in a stock swap, left it an independent operating entity, and electrified their trucks; or acquired a huge minority position (in a stock swap) if the Ford family wouldn't go for a full acquisition. They should have done that years ago. They were too self-absorbed to see the obvious opportunity. The electrified trucks would be enormous profit centers. Now, instead, Tesla will almost entirely miss out on the zillion dollar electric truck market, which they could have had a big slice of. Tesla's only shot is to abandon Cybertruck and build a normal looking truck, which they won't do for several years until the pain from the embarrassment overwhelms Musk's ego problems (otherwise they'll just leave Cybertruck as a low volume trinket in their lineup, or abandon the space entirely).

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#939

Post by sen » Sat, May 22, 2021, 4:41 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #938

carlivar wrote: post #915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Cybertruck is going to end up being a sales disaster after the initial sensationalism rapidly wears off. Sales will fade, it'll end up as a gimmick. Large numbers of consumers don't want to drive/use/own something that looks like that, they want something that looks like a normal truck. Cybertruck is Musk's equivalent of the Mac G4 Cube ego mistake, except far worse. He understood that electric vehicles should lo…

Cybertruck preorders have passed 650,000 units. While a lot are definitely just doing it for "fun" since it's refundable, it's still an insanely impressive number.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#940

Post by clouddrover » Sat, May 22, 2021, 4:41 AM UTC

leesec wrote: post #610

sunflowerfly wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not have every dealer install a couple of fast chargers? They could build out a nation-wide fast charge network in a month.

Sure but it's not just about quantity. They need to be along the highways to be useful for roadtrips. And no one else even has the tech for supercharging at the moment, it's 72kwh supercharges vs 50kwh (rare) ( as far as I know ).

Various CCS charging networks have 350 kW chargers. For example, Ionity does (https://ionity.eu/) and Electrify America does (https://www.electrifyamerica.com/). Repsol has been installing 400 kW chargers (https://insideevs.com/news/375020/repsol-most-powerful-charg...).