Hacker News Reader

Comment by abrowne | Hacker News Reader

They're going to make all-electric (and hybrid) options. What the headline first made me think was that the whole lineup would be all (=only) electric.

View on HN

yeah, "we're going to make the F-series all electric" and "we're going to make an all-electric F-series truck" are very different headlines.

It may be because they view the F-series as a platform. So they are adding "all-electric" as a feature to the F-series platform. Along with hybrid.

Article's real title is "'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says" which is more ambiguous than the misleading HN edit.

That's the in-page <h1>-title, the HN title is taken from the page's <title>-title, which is different.

<title>Ford: We're going to make F-Series all-electric</title>

<h1>'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says</h1>

But then the sentence still isn't right. You'd have to say "We're going to add all-electric to F-Series" or "We're going to make all-electric for F-Series."

"Ford: We're going to make an all-electric F-Series"

Articles are often dropped from titles:

"Were going to make (an) F-Series all-electric". It's a bit ambiguous in this case.

I was thinking the same thing. There isn't enough power generation capacity in the US to support something like that.

Wrong. For the energy it takes to refine 1 gal of gas you can drive an EV around 27 miles.

And best of all, electricity just produces itself!

No, but a central power generator can produce energy far more cheaply and efficiently than a consumer gas engine optimized for mobility.

My point was that you should be comparing production and consumption directly. Of course electric is better, we wouldn't have EV's otherwise.

An F-Series might consume more energy than, say, a Nissan Leaf, so it doesn't make sense to me to say "an EV" as though that were a standardized measurement.

That sounds impressive. Do you have a resource for those numbers?

There seems to be, electricity generation uses more energy than transportation: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/css_20...

Not to mention you have a lot of work trucks operating remotely and in cold environments where you’re going to still need gas for a long long time.

Though, if any vehicle platform can handle a huge oversize battery for a thousand miles of range on a charge- it's a pickup.

People already get 50 gallon tanks, and then throw another 100 gallon tank in the bed. That's a thousand pounds of gasoline.

Never de-gel your fuel lines again.

Considering that power generation and power transmission are generally money makers, seems like somebody would rise up to the challenge. E.g. https://futurism.com/elon-musk-tells-national-governors-asso...

I strongly suspect it’s intentional, to get more clicks. I find it annoying and wish there were a way to push back.

Yeah I thought the same. Would be nice, they'd get massive toque monsters and non-truck people would have to deal with less idiots 'rolling coal.'

Maybe they can roll ozone?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com