Ford, Not Tesla, Is Making the Electric Truck That Will Change the EV Industry
in.mashable.com
in.mashable.com
Touchscreens at the helm? Bad plan. I'm very happy with physical buttons that with distinct tactile feedback for hands only use. Distractions in the cab should be eliminated, not increased.
I'm happy that Mazda, by comparison, is specifically moving away from touchscreens and strictly to a combination of dedicated physical controls and more limited screens with a dial/puck control.
A touch screen is cheaper, because they can re-use the same hardware between different vehicles rather than having to design/build/assemble a slightly different set of physical buttons for different models with different features.
It also allows for the interface to improve/evolve over time with software updates, something that Tesla has very much taken advantage of. Tesla Model S's from 2012 still get software updates with new features from time to time.
Any savings will be lost by one class action lawsuit or mass recall. Touch screen is the wrong interface when lives are on the line.
Not exactly a lawsuit but on the judicial axis.
I think Tesla implementing major advances like intermittent wipers via OTA update is amazing and related to their culture. I don’t expected to see Ford or others follow suit. The only company that could possibly take this on IMO is VW because they’ve embraced EV beyond any other competitor with ground up new designs.
Oh wait.
The interface is actually running on your phone, but using your car's display as an external display and touch input device.
Also, for me, outdoorsy kit should be operable in gloves. Vehicles with hearing are a bit of an exception I guess, but still.
Ford still has plenty of physical buttons. They haven't gone the Tesla route of making almost every function exclusively accessed by the touch screen. It looks to me like you can access most things you'd want to use while driving directly from the buttons on the steering wheel.
> "Distractions in the cab should be eliminated, not increased."
The ideal interface here is really good, interactive voice. Hands-free and eyes-free. Unfortunately, most in-car voice interfaces aren't quite their yet, including Tesla's.
Let me guess: your native language is American English and you have no "weird" accent.
Fwiw my car always thinks I’m trying to call someone or listen to obscure 60s pop, when all I want is to adjust the AC
No, voice control - including Siri - is more dangerous than driving at the legal (UK) drink limit and worse than texting in Siri's case. Several studies have found this. Tesla is amount the worst. It's a very common misconception that voice use is safe but it really isn't. It should be banned. We have much safer and well-tested systems in good old buttons..
https://www.caradvice.com.au/312763/automotive-voice-recogni...
https://www.iamroadsmart.com/campaign-pages/end-customer-cam...
But I can't imagine any reason why, in the future, a good natural voice interface (Siri level or better) would require any more "mental effort" than having a conversation with someone in your passenger seat.
(The studies you link are referring to the distractions of in-car entertainment systems in general, not specifically the voice interface. The problem is really that drivers are taking their eyes off the road for extended periods to operate the touch screen, which wouldn't be necessary if the voice interface was capable enough)
It's only ideal when voice recognition is on the level of having a small conversation with the car, not brandishing commands like I never do in real life. It feels unnatural, and I suffer from the same issue as you and the other commenter in the thread: Siri, Google Voice, Alexa, etc., all have some issue with my accent and I don't even have a thick accent. It's absolutely infuriating to use voice assistants like that, missing 5% of the commands is worse than missing 50% because then I'm always on edge if the next command will be recognised or not.
I've always tried voice assistance, since the first time I could use one around 2005, so far I have absolutely no desire or use for them as the technology keeps just getting in the way instead of helping me out. Not even to set alarms or timers it's good enough, the feedback loop is too long and I prefer to just do 2-3 taps on a screen instead.
Got it.
Edit: I read the comment as saying "vaporwave" (the artistic style of the Cybertruck). Yes I can agree, we really have no idea when the longer range model will come.
This is a shocker to me. It costs an extra $50k for a further 70 mile range? More than double the base price to get 30% more mileage.
Is it using a totally different type of battery?
In practice for normal people it will start at higher then that, and the avg sales price even of the lower range version will likely be 55k or even 60k.
Its almost certainty the same battery just larger, that is how most EV are made. I would bet that they have a way larger margin on the larger battery to make the whole line profitable.
Ford knows their customer base. They divide them into segments based on their income/needs. Those who can pay more, must get something more. Higher price segment generates bigger profit margins.
Maximizing the amount of money you can squeeze from the consumer is both art and science.
The article is incorrect on this point. The 300-mile model actually starts in the "mid-$50,000s". It's the top end, fully specced-out version which runs $90k.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/ford-reveals-pricing-fo...
If we look at the car models with both EV and ICE versions, the EV markup tends to be huge. Hyundai Kona EV is 23k€ more than the ICE version, for 64kWh battery. Peugeot e208 is 16k€ more, for 50kWh battery. Volvo 20k€ more, for 75kWh.
And it's not just automakers. Tesla Powerwall is $8k for 13kWh. LG battery is $7k for 9kWh. Just for the battery pack, it doesn't include installation or any other equipment necessary.
So, one of these must be true:
* Ford/Tesla are overly optimistic about the battery price trajectory and the base version(s) will be a paper launch
* the public/journalists/policy makers are overly pessimistic about the battery prices and there's a huge price drop imminent
* Ford/Tesla will sell these truck at a large loss. But why?
* Consumers are being price-gouged. But why would trucks be an exemption to this?
Also, both the truck and Ford Mustang Mach-E are huge energy hogs - where are they going to source the batteries from?
Tesla has explained in detail in how they will get the cost down. Far more detail then anybody else by a large margin. Its all well documented and you will find 10+h of youtube videos and countless articles about it.
In Austin you will have a fully vertically integrated production facility almost from raw lithium hard-rock ore to a finished truck all in the same place. They are producing their own cathode materials, anode materials and battery cells, no paying profit to anybody else.
Even then I suspect the 40k version will not have Tesla usual margin.
Ford knows that F-150 is basically the lifeline of the company. The 40k version is a stripped down commercial version, I think normal consumers it starts at 52k and they hope to sell many of the longer range ones to make up margin. Ford profits from the ability to share a lot of production with existing F-150.
Would I use it as my daily ride? Probably not. But I think there's considerably more utility to it than just going for groceries.
If you have a power outage it powers your home for a few days. Put some solar panels on the roof of your home and you can basically go off grid with this vehicle. Basically, this is the ultimate vehicle for rural areas that can run long after petrol supplies get disrupted in case of hurricanes, snow blizzards, etc.
Rural people are indeed not the target market (rich middle aged suburban people are) but you have to admit, it could work rather well for them. Probably the second hand market for these things will be very competitive in a few years.
Companies get slower as they grow, more entrenched in doing what they already do.
A young contender comes along and changes the market (pretty much overnight), and the old company has to adapt.
I think it's great to see the massive old companies making the fight to stay relevant if they're not doing it through underhand means (lobbying for restrictive legislation etc).
It's a win for the consumer. Infrastructure becomes commoditised, there are more options in the market, prices go down, things like build quality become selling points..
Roadster is definitely a low volume luxury car. The S and X are also high-end with many high-end features. 3 and Y are mainstream models.
Model S competes with low end german cars when it comes to luxury, but is priced on the same level with S-class.
I see you're very familiar with Tesla.
The Lotus that the roadster was based on isn’t a luxury car, expensive != luxury the lotus Elise just like a TVR is very much a sports/racing like car, it’s selling point is selling “Le Mans” experience to people with enough money to spare not providing a luxurious ride.
Driving one whilst definitely is a fun experience isn’t a luxury experience.
If you want to see how luxury feels like drive a Porsche estate car like a Panamera/Taycan.
Tesla is honestly fucked as a car company unless they will figure out how to deliver luxury at a £100,000 price tag or figure out how to deliver the Model X not the Y at £30,000 because after driving a in a Hyundai Ioniq 5 man Tesla is in trouble.
Cars a side they might very well succeed as a battery company however that is almost antithetical to Elon’s persona he likes selling sexy tech and batteries aren’t that sexy.
Their other key component is new technologies, like the batteries, self-driving, and so on. I'm not saying they're way ahead, although in some aspects they are. I'm saying what their strategy is.
I don't know what you consider luxury honestly. Maybe the interior materials, and so on. None of this matters much on the real market. People want capability.
These cars are luxuries, but it doesn’t make sense to refer them to as luxury cars unless they’re actually luxurious. Otherwise every single expensive car would be a luxury car, F1 cars would be luxury cars.
Can you find anyone that isn’t a SEO copywriter calling stripped down mclarens that way?
For a practical example, a Miata is a sports car (and a well-loved sports car for good reason), but it's definitely not a luxury sports car, what with the wobbly cupholders, the minimal storage space, the plastic dash, the uncomfortable foot space for a passenger, etc.
They might win a quarter mile but they won’t do well on a track.
That’s ignoring the rather dreadful steering and suspension on the S and X.
The Taycan is the closest an EV gets to real sports driving right now but it’s too big and heavy for that purpose as well.
But damn is it a good drive it’s by far the closest to a perfect drive experience you can buy right now you get the handling and drive comfort of a Porsche and the acceleration of a Tesla all in a luxurious package that makes you feel like a million bucks while driving one.
To a certain extent the world still focuses on beauty first.
I mean, you can turn up on the construction site with a cyber truck or a F150 electric...
I’m talking about marketing - not the virtues of one or the other. Just marketing.
For 50k you get 400 miles on the Tesla and 230 miles for the Ford. Charing speed on the Ford peak 150kW, Tesla should should be peak 350kW. Unless I'm getting the numbers wrong.
I haven't look at the loading numbers so my memory might be off, but I think the Tesla at the same price can carry more.
The Ford can power your house apparently but the Tesla can also produce power for tools and stuff. I don't know about powering your house, it might be possible but its not advertised.
With the Tesla you can lock the storage area so you can leave expensive things you transport in there. If your family goes camping and all your luggage is in the back, or if you are contract with expensive tools. That would seem useful to me but I'm don't truck driver.
Or are you simply talking in terms of marketing?
You need to get hit really fn hard if you rip open a 3mm steel skin. If you manage that your F-150 will have to replace more then just the fender.
Just look at both websites. Ford is like a laser focused on the truck as a work vehicle.
I have limited experience of construction sites, but I do know that they're quite a harsh environment for a truck that's genuinely used for construction work rather than just as a massive car. If you're hauling materials and equipment your truck will break occasionally. When that happens you need to have a damn good spares and repairs network to call on.
I don't know if it's still the case, but that certainly used to be a bit of a problem for Tesla. People would have to wait weeks, and sometimes months, to get the spare parts for their Tesla cars. If you're working construction and you need your truck on the road to be making a living, and if Tesla hasn't resolved the spares problem, that would rule out the Cybertruck entirely for any serious contractor.
So yes, a Cybertruck would get you more attention at a construction site, but mostly just people asking "Why did you buy that? What happens when it breaks?"
It never stops to amaze me how of all places people in here are so blind to it.
Game should recognize game, especially on HN. The way Musk operates and Tesla finances scream that this is not unlike your run of the mill startup whose survival is 50:50...but of course the founder and CEO is doing media blitz after media blitz to promote the company and get a better valuation for the inevitable equity raise.
German carmakers for example are heavily invested in solid state batteries that have the potential to outperform Lithium-based batteries in almost every metric and are allegedly already performing well in the prototype phase. If this pans out, Tesla invested billions in building factories for old tech.
There are too many variables to predict who will be the clear winner.
Because Tesla has an exclusive partnership with Panasonic and the operate one of the largest battery factories in the world together.
Tesla is one of the largest costumers of LG and they are a significant costumer of CATL already.
Tesla is also massively investing in its own battery production and Tesla will actually produce the batteries in the same building as the Cybertruck. The explicit reason why Tesla invested in first a partnership and now creating their own production is because of the limited supply. Tesla has realized the problems with supply years ago and have been working on if for a decade now.
Ford until the CEO switch simply refused to even do a partnership with another battery company. Something that literally ever other significant EV player did years ago. Ford believed they could buy everything in the open market, only with the new CEO now he quickly changed his tune and now they have created a partnership with SK. Funny how the old CEO was like 'all of this is no problem' and the new CEO who wants the company to actually be contender in the future is like 'we need a partnership ASAP'. They are where Tesla was in 2012.
If you actually do the math what kind of battery production you need to support 400k F-150 a year, you quickly realized that 'buying it' is not really possible.
> German carmakers for example are heavily invested in solid state batteries that have the potential to outperform Lithium-based batteries in almost every metric and are allegedly already performing well in the prototype phase. If this pans out, Tesla invested billions in building factories for old tech.
Its pretty clear form this comment that you don't actually understand what you are talking about. Solid state batteries are lithium base batteries. The cathode is actually pretty much the same between the two. The thing you are talking about doesn't actually have anything to do with 'solid state', what you are talking about lithium metal anodes. There are plenty of solid state batteries that don't have any of these properties.
The media has picked up the term because it generates hype and sounds cool, but there are plenty of competitors in the market who have lithium metal anodes with a liquid electrolyte as well.
Much of what you read about solid state is hype, its good technology but if you think solid state are gone be a significant % of the market by 2030 you are not very informed. Just for reference, the largest actually seriously planned facility for the leading 'solid state' company, QS is a few GWh a year and that will take until like 2025 to be operational. The traditional battery companies and Tesla are planning multiple 100GWh+ factories by that point.
Traditional liquid high nickel-graphite Li-Ion is here to stay for a while and its not close to being done in terms of development. Tesla has singificant investment (bought multiple companies and have a their own research team) into silicon anodes. Silicon anodes can actually perform almost as well lithium metal anodes and are far, far easier to mass produce. There are a lot of silicon anode companies that all produce a product that can be used in traditional production lines.
Just like Giga-Nevada, these factories will continue to improve what they actually produce as the materials improves over time.
I would actually argue Tesla is the leader in silicon anode technology when their first cars with the new cells are actually delivered.
VW (and everybody else) actually knows this but its way cooler to talk about the amazing future solid state thing that the media is so hype about. If you watch their Powerday presentation, they will actually invest in manganese and high nickel cathodes with traditional anodes. That is what actually what will drive their growth in the BEV sector, not solid state.
And that is ignoring all those other things Tesla has that nobody else is even close to, like dry electrode production. If you think the factories Tesla are building now are gone be useless, you have a real bad understand of the industry. In fact, every serious competitor is rushing to build as many as they can and Tesla has a number of major manufacturing innovations that nobody else has yet.
If you're a two car family you can now make the case that you should buy an F-150 as a commuter.
Throw in the $7,500 tax credit and these things are going to sell like crazy even if the before rebate sticker price is $50,000
Source?
Not everyone buys a truck for emotional reasons, of course, but there are a lot of people who buy trucks but would be better suited in every way by SUVs (except that it's not a truck), and a lot of people who buy SUVs but would be better suited in every way by minivans (except that it's a minivan).