America's best-selling car in 2018 is the F150 series!
American's are going crazy for SUVs and pickups, but the F150 has been the best-selling vehicle for decades. Pickups have outsold passenger vehicles for a long time.
Coming in 2021, the electric Ford F-150.[1] That should be a great truck. Empty pickups have poor weight distribution; not enough weight in back. With a giant battery pack under the pickup bed, traction is better.
Plus, no propshaft or exhaust to get hung up on things, and you can get the CoG lower, improving handling. Plus, a level of traction control that simply isn't possible with ICE. I'm excited.
Plus, electric motors have flat torque curves, while ICEs need to get up to a certain RPM before you start getting decent torque. That means you get maximum acceleration and hauling power from the get-go.
(This incidentally is part of why Tesla started with the Roadster - the flat torque curve of an electric motor can give some great acceleration numbers, which is pretty nifty when you're building a status-symbol sports car.)
Gah. I agree that electric vehicles are cool, but there is no need for parroting "facts" about ICEs that were true in the 1970s.
If you look at the torque curve of a modern pickup truck engine, it's either completely flat or it's actually decreasing as you go from low to high RPMs. E.g. the GM Duramax 6.6 maxes out at 1200 Nm at 1600 RPM, then decreases to 900 as you go higher in revs. For comparison, the Model X P100D puts out 660 Nm at peak.
Wrt. Tesla's acceleration numbers - it's always been possible to obtain those. In fact, sub 2-second 0-60 times were achieved with road legal Ford RS200 in the mid 1980s. Sports car manufacturers have instead been competing on track times on famous circuits like the Nurburgring Nordschliefe. Tesla hadn't a snowballs chance in a hatching machine to compete on that, so they went and optimized for a spec where there was no real competition, and that fit their technology well.
As for traction control, there is no system in the world that is superior to just locking all three diffs. This is what you find in serious off-road machines, and many decent pickups. No sensors, no intelligence, no response times, just simple mechanical engineering that will always automatically distribute torque to where it is needed. Instead of being reactive, acting when slip has been detected, it is proactive and gives you torque where there is grip.
Assume you're stuck in mud somehow, a perfect case for diff lockers. If you lock the rotational rate of all your wheels together you are either:
a.) limiting the torque you're applying to the amount the tire with the least amount of traction available can bear before slipping out, or
b.) letting 'em rip and hoping you don't dig yourself down into a hole.
The beauty of having fine control over the power going to each motor is that you can put down the max torque that particular wheel can manage regardless of what the other tires are doing. And you can do so with a granularity that is unmatched by any ICE TC system (which IIRC use the brakes to control torque?)
Tesla did a 7:23 in a heavily modified testing vehicle that has big extra air intakes for cooling, racing slicks, a massive rear diffuser, bigger spoiler, and is believed to have 3 engines.
For comparison, a front-wheel-drive stock Renault Megane RS does 7:40. Mercedes did 7:25 in a stock 4-door coupe last year, the AMG GT 63S. The stock supercars are down below the 7:00 mark mostly.
In the non-stock category, the record is 5:19 by one of Porsche's modified LMP1 cars.
If you look up how a stall speed converter works, you'll see that an automatic transmission delivers torque at a non-zero engine RPM even if the wheels are at zero RPM. The lowest you will go on the Duramax is around 1000 RPM, where you get 600 Nm torque.
This!!! I've told everyone who'd listen for years that an electric motor is the better option for a pickup trucks due to the more appropriate matching of the torque curve to the hauling load demands.
When my beloved '00 Ram 1500 died about 5 years ago I decided to hold out for an electric truck that I assumed would be coming to market. Looks like I may finally get my chance shortly. I honestly don't know if the cumulative environmental footprint is better, but I do know an electric motor will be superior.
Trains are electric motors powered by diesel generators. Seems like it should be an easy sell for people that whatever trains do is an effective way to handle heavy loads.
I used to own an old Ford Ranger, and in Winter I would have it loaded with bags of sand in the bed to improve traction on ice. I could have just as easily been hauling batteries everywhere.
When I was 17, I crashed and totaled my '77 Ford pickup because I slid out on wet pavement. Everyone said I needed sand bags but I loved being able to peel out so easily. Live and learn.
Lose half the battery capacity in cold weather. EVs are less efficient at highway speeds. Two things rural half ton trucks need. Add to that the loss of carrying capacity due to the battery weight. I'm not sure if motors and battery weigh a similar amount as a drivetrain and fuel, I hope so.
If it's only city travel it's fine but that's not what a truck was made for.
I'm all for electric vehicles and I hope the technology advances but people need to be realistic.
It's like the customer service industry if all the comments are compliments how do you know what is wrong?
A vehicle that has a towing capacity in the tens of thousands of pounds can have a big battery bank, and so it could have longer range than a small sedan. Of course the weight of the battery itself reduces range, and carrying a load will reduce range, and bigger batteries increase cost, but I suspect the reason Ford is introducing an electric truck in 2021 (and Tesla has one coming, too) is because they've done the math and it's finally starting work out right for some category of their customer base.
The truck market is downright scientific, and Ford is the leader in that market. They serve a lot of fleet customers and have huge amounts of data about how those fleets are used. They must have found a segment that will find electric vehicles cost-effective, otherwise they'd put it off another year or two or three. It's not the average truck buyer that's pushing them toward electric (there's a deep vein of stupid in that market that loves big, noisy, smelly, engines), but I'm confident they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. I believe Ford making an electric truck means there's a market for electric trucks, whatever their limitations, at the price they can deliver them.
That's like the hall of fame entry for things that aren't actually true about electric vehicles. Efficiency doesn't get worse at highway speeds as compared to gas engines. EVs and gas engines spend more of their energy going faster against air resistance. evs are vastly more efficient than gas cars in terms of energey efficiency, thats why electric cars have theoretical gas mileage of around 100 mpg. But gas is a very efficient energy storage mechanism, gas cars are about 1/4 the efficiency of electric cars but can be gased up quickly and have more net range usually.
Teslas don't lose half their range when it's cold. They do lose some range, but it's much less than other evs, because they heat up the pack. evs are great for cross country travel, if there are reasonable charging stations along the way (which is best with tesla).
theoretical gallons of gas is not useful when you have vastly different ranger per gallon (or kilowatts) of energy. Reporting miles of range is what makes sense. Cars get less mileage when they 70 miles per hour than 60 mph, but its not so visible because you don't ever have such an exact measure of gas and range available.
I own an F150 I inherited from my grandfather. As much as I lust after Teslas I wouldn't trade it for an electric for one simple reason: my F150 is what I drive if I must drive at all when it floods. AFAIK you cannot and should not submerge the motors or the battery on an electric car. Still, that's an edge case.
Telsa model 3s act as boats during floods. Have a look at youtube, there are numerous videos of people stranded in their engine flooded car and a Tesla floats right by.
And yet if I started a Tesla warranty climb with "So there I was, driving through several feet of water" I'm skeptical it would be approved. That was my point. Electrics are fantastic vehicles. I can't wait to own my first one, but they aren't yet built for every purpose.
I don't think the Ford dealership would warrant me driving an F-150 through several feet of water either but fixing the issues that come from it are a known quantity. Not so much with an electric pickup.
> Empty pickups have poor weight distribution; not enough weight in back. With a giant battery pack under the pickup bed, traction is better.
The problem you're mentioning being solved by a battery pack could just as easily be solved by putting any random ballast in the back of the regular truck. I think electric will have other advantages (and disadvantages), but I doubt this is a big one for most people.
I put two sixty-pound buckets of gravel in the back corners of my pickup. That's a neglible difference in weight but a very noticeable difference in traction in cold wet weather.
>We're talking about a V8 with tons of torque and horsepower.
Take a look at the market. Lots of the trucks actually sold are dumpy underpowered RWD sixes or less, and the new motors are getting smaller, better, and more fuel efficient. Doesn't sound like the market wants a heavier boat to careen down the interstate in.
You can charge a whole lot more for the industrially useful V8's (which are still dumpy IMO, their job is "Don't stop turning over.") and much better diesels anyhow. At least telling uncle charlie about the OEM underslung sandbags will get quite a chuckle at Thanksgiving dinner.
Sure, but it solves the problem of traction. The electric vehicle also reduces efficiency by adding weight to the vehicle - being electric doesn't change physics. And being able to remove weight is always preferable to not being able to remove weight.
>adding weight [...] being electric doesn't change physics
Unlike Internal Combustion vehicles, electric vehicles typically feature regenerative braking. Therefore any added weight is much less of an efficiency handicap (compared with IC).
>The electric vehicle also reduces efficiency by adding weight to the vehicle - being electric doesn't change physics.
The battery adds weight, but that's more than outweighed by the tremendous efficiency of an electric drivetrain. The EV equivalent of a gas-guzzler (e.g. a Tesla Model X P90D) still achieves the equivalent of 90mpg.
I am not arguing that an ICE vehicle is more efficient than an electric vehicle - I am saying that adding weight reduces efficiency for both. I was not making a general comparison between the pros and cons of electric vehicles, I was pointing out that one person's comment about better traction for electric vehicles was incredibly disingenuous because ICE vehicles can get the same benefit by simply adding weight - and they can also remove that weight when they want to unlike the electric vehicle.
Your argument is incorrect as pointed out by dropin685 earlier. Additional weight by itself does not waste energy. It does require more power to accelerate. The extra power is turned into higher kinetic energy for the same cruising speed. However kinetic energy is not waste. It can be recovered during deacceleration. It's the lack of regeneration that causes ICE powered vehicles to waste energy, which doesn't apply to EVs with regeneration capabilities.
I am obviously failing to communicate as this was meant to be about the effects of weight and traction, and how batteries are not unique for adding weight to a vehicle (other than a lower center of gravity, but that has nothing to do with my original point).
While regenerative braking is most common in electric vehicles, this also is not unique to electric vehicles. A hybrid vehicle can just as easily benefit from this, such as the Prius.
> Additional weight by itself does not waste energy. It does require more power to accelerate. The extra power is turned into higher kinetic energy for the same cruising speed. However kinetic energy is not waste. It can be recovered during deacceleration.
This is incorrect unless the engine/motor, drivetrain, and tires are all 100% efficient - additional weight always wastes energy.
But I agree with you, electric vehicles are more energy efficient than gasoline vehicles.
> A hybrid vehicle can just as easily benefit from this, such as the Prius.
If you momentarily ignore the fact that its ultimate energy source is gasoline and focus only on the regen system a hybrid is an electric vehicle, just one that (sadly) lacks a plug.
> It's the lack of regeneration that causes ICE powered vehicles to waste energy,
Not just the lack of regen. ICEs waste energy while idling, as heat, noise, and vibration, and mechanical couplings like clutches and especially fluid couplings in automatic transmissions also waste energy. Automatic transmissions in particular are only 90%
mechanically efficient, on top of all the losses from the ICE.
Good weight distribution in ICE cars is pretty exotic. Only fairly performance optimized ICE cars like a Porsche Cayman, BMW m3, and similar performance oriented cars get the ideal 50/50 distribution.
Changing that weight distribution is very expensive from a R&D perspective. Sometimes the battery is moved, or the engine is moved a few inches relative to the front axle. This is one of the reasons performance oriented cars are often rather large compared to their usable interior volumes.
Battery operated cars do have a weight penalty, but you can put that weight wherever you want. You could relatively trivially make a 50/50 distributor of significantly front or rear biased with no substantial R&D overhead or loss of efficiency.
For instance the Tesla model 3 not only has a very low center of gravity, but also a very low polar momentum. In an ice car that would require a mid engine design (like a Ferrari, Lamborghini, or the newest Corvette. While having an large usable volume, more like a bmw 5 series than a 3).
So basically weight distribution is easy to tweak with batteries, and even with the weight penalty have a substantial lead in efficiency.
I have already specifically mentioned that I am not talking about center of gravity or handling characteristics you'd find in a sports car. I have already written multiple comments about how you can put weight in a truck to add traction to the rear tires. I have already explained that electric vehicles are heavier but more efficient than ICE vehicles. You basically say similar things to what I said, and then come to the 100% wrong conclusion.
> So basically weight distribution is easy to tweak with batteries
No. You can do this when designing the car, but not afterwards. You want more weight in the regular pickup truck? Throw it in the back. You want less? Take it out. You can't take the batteries out of the electric vehicle. All my original comment said was you can add weight to the back of a pickup truck to improve traction on the rear axle. I didn't talk about center of gravity, or performance vehicles, or even mention that electric vehicles are heavier.
I am astounded by the amount of comments taking something I said, responding to it maybe tangentially and then concluding with "well that's why electric vehicles are better!" Let's just agree to disagree.
> I was not making a general comparison between the pros and cons of electric vehicles
And you replied:
> Yes, but on the converse side...[something that has nothing to do with traction]
Am I unintentionally arguing that electric vehicles are bad? I get the impression people think I hate electric vehicles and are trying to convince me of their virtues, when I was simply pointing out what I thought was a logical flaw from another commenter.
If the power density of batteries doubles the weight penalty likely disappears. Maybe that's not possible. But as electric vehicle production increasing there is going to be a lot of pressure to achieve that. With funding to match.
It's not a controversial statement to say electric vehicles are heavier than gasoline vehicles. Typically an electric vehicle will weigh about 1/3 more than a competing ICE vehicle. Just look at curb weights for vehicles if you don't believe me.
Most would consider the Tesla Model 3 a luxury car. The BMW 3 series and Telsa model 3 are positioned similarly. Both are $40k-$80k, optionally AWD, sold as performance luxury sedans in a range of different performances. If you want to pick two particular models I'd say the model 3 AWD and the BMW 330i xdrive are very similar.
The BMW weights 3,763 pounds, so the Model 3P weight 4,072, which is just over 8% heavier.
I just looked at some numbers and you're right, it does seem like I exaggerated. If you choose the lower weight range for the 3 series though the difference ends up being 14% heavier, and obviously you can choose difference cars to compare. But you are right, 1/3 seems too high. Maybe half that would be more accurate.
I looked at the lighter weight BMW model 3 series. They were either smaller engines (not fair since the model 3 AWD is already faster), or RWD (again not fair to compare to an AWD electric).
For the Model S my first thought was the M4, which actually does end up with the original 1/3 weight disparity I mentioned, but I think this is just a coincidence of my first choice. Compared to an E63 AMG, a car in a similar category known for carrying a bit of weight, and the difference is closer to 10%. Compared to an RS4 the difference is about 20%.
For the Model X I was really surprised how small the differences were. Compared to a G Wagon, which I'd say is really its competition, the difference in weight is about 8%. Compared to an X5, it's about 5%. If you consider the X7 to be the competition (which most people probably do), the X7 ends up being about 1% heavier.
And just to add it since I'm already doing this, I think the clear competitor for the Model 3 Performance is the M2 Competition. They're specifically meant to be track vehicles that you can comfortably use for your daily driver. This puts the weight disparity at 18% for that model. And just for fun: https://youtu.be/HycUgd6fTWI & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pu9046wX9g
So I guess the conclusion is electric vehicles are heavier, but as you move towards already heavy vehicles like SUVs the weight differences start to vanish. But as you move towards more smaller vehicles, the difference is much more noticeable.
Come now, that's not even close. That's comparing a BMW M4 2 door coup with a rear seat (rated for 4 adults) with a fullsize 5 door sedan (rated for 5 adults). The model S has around 3 times the cargo space (30 ft^3 s "8 to 11" ft^2 on the BMW).
A 5 series is much closer, 5 adults, 18 ft^3 cargo space, and even leads by a bit on passenger space (98 ft^3 vs 94 ft^3). The model S is AWD only, so to be fair lets add that to the BMW 5 series.
The BMW 550i xdrive "base curb weight" is 4,372, the Tesla S P100D is 4883, so 11.6%. Both cars have slower/lighter versions of course. The M550i has a 0-60 of 3.8 seconds, the Tesla 2.5 seconds.
They are both handle 5 passenger, have 4 doors (ignoring the heavier hatchback on the S), have AWD, are within 1 inch wheelbase and 0.6 inch in length. Having sat in both I'd say that feel relatively similarly sized, especially in the back seat (unlike the M4).
As for the m2 competition, I think the weight distribution can be partially attributed to it being a small 2 door with a token rear seat and tiny trunk than any strong statement about ICE vs electric. I'm not saying batteries (at least today) are not heavier, just that for comparably sized/marketed cars the difference is relatively low.
I think a common trap is to compare a large tesla that fits a family of 4+dog and to compare it to a high performance sports coup... because of the similar performance. Not because they are comparable cars for most uses.
All your points are valid, with one caveat. The Model 3 Performance really is targeted at people that want the "fun" car, so I think it's appropriate to compare it to other sports cars. But that said - there is obviously a huge benefit going towards the Tesla in having more utility due to its size.
Everyone throws some sandbags and rock salt in the bed, next to the shovel and tinfoil blanky. Sure gonna need it when you're stuck in the ditch :)
I'd take computer managed digital torque delivery over feathering my old clutch plate, if you even still get to run one of those. The dual-clutch trans will need your other foot. Mushy delivery (Sounds like an f150 to me) and out of the mud aren't really compatible.
No it isn't, not at all. The tow operator is equipped for both, already. And if you're pulling with a 3k winch maybe you need to make stop at harbor freight.
Anyhow, instead of faffing around with silly sandbags, a mid-engine truck is what you're dancing around. Closest thing I've heard of is the Isuzu ELF (NPR in my neck of the woods) which they've been producing since the 60's or so. The motor is kind of underneath the cab. Nobody wants what you're selling.
This argument sounds a lot like the ones I heard about why Instagram would never be as big as Flickr. YouTube needs creators and if other platforms keep attracting them, YouTube could have a big problem.
The map seems like it doesn't specifically stick to municipalities. In New York City it gets granular enough to show that Sylvester Stallone was born in Hell's Kitchen. But for the city of Chicago, it only shows Barack Obama.
I think you're going to have to wait to get an answer on this. The hope is that you can use a standard USB-C card reader to quickly import directly into a Files directory.
I import raw pictures all the time, but it's usually just a few pics. I don't think people realize how long it takes to import a days worth of pics or how you lose all your file names when you import the pictures.
I think the biggest difference is that the disinformation was performed by state actors in Russia while the Steele Dossier was research on the actions and relationships that state actors had. Not to mention the fact that the details of the Dossier did not become public until after the election.
People bought them knowing that they were making tradeoffs in performance, but the real problem was that the computers were not even hitting their advertised specs.
>Second, we already have a perfectly fine train to O'Hare!
I wouldn't say that it's perfectly fine. The Blue Line to O'Hare has become notorious for it's overcrowding. I think the goal is to reduce some of that congestion to O'Hare and get people to stay at hotels in the city. I'm not convinced that it's worth it though.
Crowding exists on the blue line because there's not enough power to run more cars to support the increase in rush-hour ridership in the neighborhoods of Logan Square, Bucktown, Wicker Park and Nobel Square. Outside of rush hour, it's not that bad. If the Blue Line could run 5mph faster, and run an extra car or two, that'd make a huge dent in that congestion.
Yes, and there is a project to increase power in progress. With the upcoming O'Hare expansion and increased TOD development along the Blue Line this is could very well help mitigate future overcrowding at minimal cost to the city.
I'd argue that for the red line as well. Especially for rush hour. Anecdotal but I've always gotten a seat while traveling to O'Hare (Mon & Thurs 8am-ish).
I dont think he can stay around without exploiting crony capitalism, his businesses have failed.
EDIT: Was forced out of paypal, spaceX is reliant on taxes, Tesla isnt profitable, SolarCity wasnt profitable and was bought by tesla(which outrages anyone who knows anything about corruption and stock ownership) and Boring is reliant on taxes.
How is that an argument? There's plenty of companies that service only governments, and as such are entirely reliant on taxes. Sounds like a perfectly real source of profit.
> Boring is reliant on taxes.
TBC is self-funded and has been all this time. This is literally the first commercial thing TBC is building, and even this they're financing themselves. So this is simply untrue.
> Tesla isnt profitable
I'll give you this. I'm curious if he'll be able to make it profitable like he's promising now.
Again. That is simply false. The waste majority of their flights are not for the government and they do not depend on the government contracts to keep them going.
Also they are offering their services to NASA cheaper then all competition (domestic and global) by as much as 50%. NASA itself admitted that they can not do it cheaper then commercial partners.
American's are going crazy for SUVs and pickups, but the F150 has been the best-selling vehicle for decades. Pickups have outsold passenger vehicles for a long time.