Ford F-150 All Electric Pickup Truck
 

Ford is getting closer to an all electric F-150:

Ford teases all-electric F-150 pickup truck by pulling a million-pound train

Watch Ford F-150 all-electric pickup prototype tow over 1 million lbs of train carts [SIC]

https://i2.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-con...trip=all&ssl=1

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/07/23...-pickup-truck/

Oh, and they will sell a hybrid F-150 next year - 2020.

As I said in the Bolt forum, I expect an F-series EV to sell far more than a Tesla truck for the simple fact that the F-series is already the top selling vehicle in the US, and people that want to use their trucks for work will choose them. Those that want to commute in a truck will probably seek out a Tesla. Rivian will be bought out by one of the bigger players. No chance of survival on their own.

I'm excited for the hybrid pickup. That's what the very first hybrid vehicle should have been... 20 years later.

I wish automotive mfr wouldn't do the tow example. There was a guy on hackaday that did move a SD60 locomotive with a cd drive motor. Enough traction and gearing you can move anything, slowly perhaps, but noticeable movement.

Now if they give you all the parameters, maybe it will be meaningful.

Yep, give me a big enough lever and I'll move the world.

That was more weight but on rails with steel wheels. Technically a 4400 hp locomotive can pull even up hills a 34 million pound train, meaning a 1/34th train only needs about 130 hp. Personally think this is the coolest gimmick of all time. Dirt road, on tires, and this thing probably has less than 250 hp to the wheels for about 1/2 a million pounds.

https://youtu.be/sPk6UGlq2es

Hey, that looks exactly like the Chevy pickup that's been collecting dust in our machine shed for the past 20 years.

I saw a big wheeled fulcrum at work the other day that was a good 7 feet long with a 6" claw. So if I weigh 200 pounds and bear down on the end I can lift 2800 pounds albeit only about 4" off the ground.

I always like to explain to the big diesel truck folks, 600 ft-lbs of torque is great, but I can easily put down 600 ft-lbs with a 3 foot bar. I can move that camper up the hill too. The difference is I can only make about 1/4 horsepower and your truck makes 400+, it would take me a year to get up the hill. Without the rate at which the force is applied it doesn't mean much, you need horsepower and torque.

Actually you kinda need something to hold onto the end of the 3ft bar to get that torque otherwise you aren't at 3ft. You probably don't weigh exactly 200lbs either, but I won't mention that.

The other issue is idle engine torque: take something that needs 500 lbft torque to move, hook it up to one of them 600lbft trucks, dump the clutch in straight drive and it stalls. Hmm. Come to think of it, it will stall not hooked up to anything. My F250 Supposedly has 530 lbft at idle, so how come when I forget to downshift at a stop sign it dies? So really it takes about 5300lbft torque to idle start my truck in first gear.

Since it's made by ford some what normal people may be able to afford it.
The tesla truck will be a grocery getter bought by rich a holes.

Would they be A holes because they are "rich", or because all of humanity are A holes?

What kind of hole am I owning a Prius, big diesel truck with big tires, a sport bike, an Acura, and a Mazda?

hooking up and firing up the locomotive

Ain't nobody got time for that.. :D

I still believe an electric F-150 will cater mostly to the fleet market. Unless some "extended-range" version fitted with an onboard genset is made available initially for the military, and then maybe all the rednecks would daydream about getting a similar drivetrain in a similar way to how the Jeep and subsequently the Hummer made their way into the civilian market...

I believe it was in the hybrid Tahoe thread that someone said hybridizing a truck or SUV would make more of a difference than replacing a sedan with a Prius, but how many Prii were, confusingly, bought as a status symbol?

I would rather well-to-do sheep bought a 50 MPG hunchback than a 6,000-pound ego hauler.

However, twenty years later we have the 25 MPG ego haulers, so what difference does it make?

We tend to consume in proportion to what we can afford. Europeans don't drive smaller vehicles because their DNA has been infused with extra righteousness. If we were to have grown up in Europe, we'd be driving the smaller cars for the same reasons they are, and if they had grown up in the US, they would be driving larger vehicles.

It will take either policy or prices to make large vehicles undesirable to consumers. In my view, if we want MPGs to go up, then fuel prices must increase via taxation.

Protectionist policies have led Americans to be fooled into believing an oversized SUV would always be the pinnacle of safety.


Had EPA not been so lenient when it comes to light-duty trucks and SUVs as it used to be, leading the Big Three to settle in a comfort zone instead of looking out to improve their drivetrain tech, I'm sure fuel price increases via taxation wouldn't be needed to force MPGs to go up.

How do we make driving a bigger and less efficient vehicles than necessary uncool?

What if everyone could afford an XL1 tried to?

I dunno, I already think driving something that doesn't accelerate or handle well pretty uncool. Too bad the line of cars piled up behind the slow truck that's on the brakes through curvy roads isn't enough shame to change their ways.

Who? Tried to what?

I'm with you there. Followed a yahoo last night down from Tahoe, sat on his brakes long enough to smoke them and he was empty. The truck in front of him had a load and I never saw brake lights come on. I just used lower gears with an occasional brake tap to keep from rear ending the yahoo. Must be 30 high speed turnouts on the way down you can use.

The thing is, I'm so comfortable with corners and the handling characteristics of my vehicle that even in my truck with a full load and trailer, I'd probably still be on the tail of a slow Honda Civic driver that doesn't like to feel any lateral acceleration.

My baseline through a corner is 20 MPH over the suggested speed. Can't stand when people want to do 15 MPH UNDER the suggested speed.

I've never been accused of being 'normal' ... I'm in the market for an electric F-150. :D

300 km range, as a people mover, on a charge would be my minimum.

I could deal with 150 km range, hauling a 5500 lb trailer, against the wind, in the rain, and whatever other worst case conditions you can think of ... before charging for an hour or two.

Range is largely a function of speed, so that's very dependent on how patient the driver is or the willingness to impede traffic. 300km range probably roughly equates to a 120 kWh battery, or twice the capacity of the Chevy Bolt. For reference, the largest battery Tesla makes for their vehicles is 100 kWh. The retail cost of such a battery I would roughly estimate at $25,000. Start adding up the price of the truck itself from there.

120 kWh is probably about the right size for a pickup too, all things considered.

I'd still rather look at plug-in hybrid than a purely-electric powertrain. But anyway, I'm sure most of the frequent users of this board wouldn't be deemed "normal". Including myself :D

@redpoint - agreed that range is subjective. 300 km at highway speed (65 mph, 105 kph) so I am not a danger to myself and others on the crappy roads that we have here.

@cRiPpLe_rOoStEr - I would settle for a mild hybrid. The new 48V accessories available from at least 1 supplier (only read through the AVID info so far) appear attractive:
- heating, air conditioning, ventilation of the cabin
- water pump for cooling the engine
- heat exchanger/pump for battery pack conditioning
- electric power steering assist
- electric ABS .. stuff ..
- a couple of kwh in the 48V pack
- still needs a 12V lead acid battery for running the contactors and running the BMS ... for some reason ..

The 48V pack is just too low and too small to drive traction motors. IMHO you still need 400ish V for that.

But putting most stuff on 48V is a first step, I guess.

Still gets way better MPG then my old car did I'd be lucky to get 12/22MPG in that old V6 2003 btw :rolleyes:
i get 21MPG in the city and 25 on the highway


i all ready saved $2,000 in operating costs so far with 6 months of ownership

(that is including repair costs)
My repair costs has only been $40 for a map sensor
maintenance costs $114

it's only costing me about $0.178 Avg Price/Mile

it will have paid for it self in 3 1/2 years


My previous car was averaging about 200-300 in repairs per month or about 45 cents a mile... I would have had to throw another $5,000 at it just to get it to pass smog, as it have several simultaneous Failures...


I don't want a Prius, people might think I'm gay or something.



electric car changes nothing..


you will just be powering the car from Dirty Coal or nuclear power(which is the worst EMISSIONS of all time since it will last tens of thousands of years as a waste product)

Nothing wrong with the prius. I can say for sure more straight white guys and soccer mom's drive them than anything.

Who cares where electricity comes from its way cheaper to power an EV than fuel an SUV. Plus everywhere in the country coals market share is being eaten away and replaced by wind and natural gas.

When spent nuclear fuel is recycled it doesn't last tens of thousands of years. The unwanted waste isotopes loose approximately 99.99% of their radioactivity after 40 years when the waste and fuel are seperated.
Then the recycled mixed oxide fuel is stable and ready to use for tens of thousands of years.
Our current plan is to use nuclear fuel once, which consumes up to 5% of the fissile elements, then put it all in "temporary storage" permanently. Which is the stupidest plan anyone would possibly come up with. Thank politicians and nimbly useful idiots.
The reason the spent fuel stays highly radioactive for so long is because the vast majority of the "spent fuel" is still fissile material.

I wonder if a reactor could be designed so that as fuel is spent, the rods are placed closer together, or perhaps a design where new rods are added on the outside, while aging rods are moved closer to the center over time, thereby maintaining the same power output but extracting more of the fissile material?

I'd never design something that utilizes only 5% of the available fuel.

Considering our power plants are based on 60s technology, it seems likely there is a lot of potential for making fission plants more cost effective and safe. There would be an initial outlay of engineering costs associated, but once that's done, the plans could be applied to any number of generators, amortizing the development costs.

Rods are deprecated:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ish%29.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

I have a vague notion of other schemes, such as pebble bed and MSR. No idea how they compete cost-wise... just talking aloud out of ignorance that it seems there ought to be a better way to design rod reactors to make better use of the fuel and to operate more safely.

My assumption was that rods were retired at 95% fissile material remaining because they can't sustain the reaction at the levels required to produce "full power". If that's the case, it seems there should be a way to move material around in such a way that a larger percentage of the material can be consumed while still safely producing full rated power output.

As an analogy, when I'm burning wet wood for a campfire, I stack a lot more wood on to better trap the heat and to dry out the wood that will burn later. It's an inferior grade of fuel due to the water content, but that is compensated by using more of it at a slower burn rate, and arranging it in a particular way...

this thread went way OT very quickly.

Oh no 5% is best case, older designs may use only 3%.
It's safety and cost.
When the current nuclear fuel cycle was thought of the idea was the waste would be recycled as soon as the decay heat output calmed down enough for the spent fuel to be transported.
If the uranium were highly enriched and the reactor was of a 2 mode design where it could start as a PWR and switch to a BWR it could use up substantially more fissile material.
But the cost goes way up to do that.

The reactor itself doesn't even need to be capable of utilizing the degraded fuel. Other reactors in other locations could be built to utilize the degraded fuel and receive it from the primary reactors at a reduced cost, free, or even have the primary sources pay the secondary reactors to take it.

There could be a series of reactors that utilize lower and lower grades of fuel until it no longer makes economic and environmental sense to further "burn" the fuel, at which point it finally gets stored at a much less radioactive state, or gets processed to remove the fissile material from the non-fissile material. Isn't it easier to get fissile material from used rods than to dig it out of the ground?

MODS- can we have post #27 on put in a different thread, perhaps this one:

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...ide-36723.html

Put Ariana Grande and Puff Daddy in Teslas Model 3s.

Did P-Diddy revert back to his former alias?
I'm pretty sure it's Ariana Venti by now.

Do I have any reason to know who these people are?

So...how 'bout them Furds?

In the navy the nuclear rods had to be replaced because they needed to never be in the situation where you have a shutdown and then are unable to immediately restart the reactor because of decaying poisons. Saving 20 years of fossil fuel is great, but the cost of the uranium washes that out and the added cost of operating a nuclear plant makes the CVN more expensive per mile than the CV. Why do nuclear carriers then? Because they carry more jet feul, bombs, and can operate much longer without resupply.
This is why we need nuclear F150s just to stay on topic

Maybe we need our nuke fleet to help smooth the grid whenever they are at port?

No, they're just pleb fodder for the useful idiots of the world.

Fjords are good, ya!

They reduce the neutron poisons by running a very enriched reactor fuel blend. We are talking so highly enriched it's not anywhere near commercially viable for power generation.