Ford F-150 Lightning Reaches Its First Customers | Hacker News Reader

Ford F-150 Lightning Reaches Its First Customers

cleantechnica.com

50 pointsCarCooler144 comments

I think Tesla is finally getting some competition. Even if the F-150 isn't perfect, they finally have a vehicle that can compete.

I doubt that Tesla's Cyber truck will be out anytime out in the near future and at a price that can compete with the F-150.

i certainly hope they can build square car that is cheaper than a rounded car :)

what is tesla's competitive advantage going forward? brand cachet?

Does Tesla's patent portfolio serve as a competitive advantage? I don't follow such things, so I don't know.

Regardless of patent portfolio, I think it's a safe bet that Tesla views their (vaporware-ish?) self driving tech as a competitive advantage. Probably why they emphasize it so much and Elon seems absolutely fixated on it.

If I interpret this correctly[0], their patents have no competitive value?

It just feels like we're at an inflection point where Tesla's production will soon be dwarfed by competitors and consumers having the choice of dozens of EVs vs a handful is going to drastically shift the market.

[0] - https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pled...

That's just a bog standard mutual license patent clause wrapped up in some silly "open source" phrasing.

> where Tesla's production will soon be dwarfed by competitors

If theycan get enough batteries, that's currently the bottleneck for most manufacturers. Tesla has spent the last decade securing battery supply.

No union. Supercharger network. Battery factories. Solar cells. AI and software. Much less baggage as a newer company.

All valid points - I still think there is something brewing behind the scenes of Ford with their Model E division, some financial engineering to spin it off and shed pension liabilities or whatever.

That last part is a huge deal. No meaningful debt and very positive cash flow will give them some meaningful advantages.

Exactly. With over 20% margin, Tesla can afford to cut prices a lot if they ever need to, whereas most other manufacturers are probably barely breaking even on their electric vehicles.

Tesla's supercharger network still seems to me a lot more reliable and easy-to-use than Electrify America (which Ford uses), but EA is building out fast. I'm also a bigger fan of Tesla's cylindrical batteries than Ford's pouch batteries, but time may prove me wrong.

Yeah, the supercharger network is years ahead. I wish EA would do something similar to the tesla chargers where it would automatically bill your account. I love not having to use a CC or scan a fob.

There is plug-in charging that uses your car's VIN. No need to credit card/fob/anything.

https://www.engadget.com/electrify-america-ev-charging-payme...

Perfect. This is one step closer to making EVs even more convenient than gas. Forget your wallet? You can still get a quick charge if necessary.

EA is just one of the CCS networks in the country, there's also EVgo, Chargepoint, probably others.

Point taken. Tesla is soon going to have to make its US network CCS compatible too; their European cars already use CCS connectors because the law there requires it.

It's kind of an unoptimal result because CCS is a big ugly connector while the Tesla connector is small and sleek: Tesla uses the same pins for both AC and DC, while CCS requires separate pins.

Oh well. VHS beats Betamax again.

The Supercharger network is a selling point as well. Much of the US is well covered. The chargers seem more robust than competitor's set-ups (which are often broken when you arrive).

Trying to charge a non-Tesla during a trip can be a bit of a crap-shoot. Will the station be available? Will it be functional? Do I need to create yet another new account on yet another new app to access it?

This won't last. But until the competition makes their charging network better, it's a selling point for many buyers.

> The Supercharger network is a selling point as well. Much of the US is well covered.

How many truck buyers are realistically driving their trucks cross country? The ideal truck EV owner is the ranch owners in Texas who drives to the local TSC, grabs his stuff and then is doing work somewhere on the 10 acres ranch. If it meant never driving to the gas station that's a huge time saver. F-150 is a great fit for that.

The people I know interested in the Tesla cybertruck are tech bros who have enough disposable income that buying a cybertruck is basically a solution in search of a problem. They'll end up using it to tow their boat or go camping.

The same number of buyers that take their ICE trucks cross country? Most truck owners don't need trucks, or need a truck very infrequently, but buy one anyways.

I'd consider a Lightning if my Honda Ridgeline wasn't only a year old. Except I'm not sure it has enough range to actually get me from DC to Canaan Valley and back without a long detour to charge on the way home. Using ABRP, it has 90 minutes of charging and another 30-45 minutes of extra driving to get to a charger. This is over what should be a 6 hour drive (3 each way), so pretty ridiculous.

Compared to a Tesla Model X (standard range), which needs 45 minutes of charging, but no extra distance because there's a Supercharger on the way (using Tesla's maps). The 45 minutes charging is still pretty silly, given an ICE can do the round trip on a single tank, but that's way better than the non-Tesla option.

I think Tesla still has a leg up on range. I looked into buying an F150 but the range is just a bit low for me. The Lightning has a purported EPA range of 320 miles which if you subtract off the top 10% and bottom 10% means it really has 250 miles of usable range at EPA standards which would probably drop it to 150-180 if you're driving it at highway speeds with a load. It's just a bit too low for me if I'm going to take this thing camping or hauling a trailer for a boat.

That said, I think 150-180 miles is plenty of range for people who would just drive this thing to work and back.

Most Teslas are similar. ~320 miles at best, and closer to 200 in the real world on the highway with reasonable buffers.

320 is a fair mark, but I didn't do the math for real world reasonable buffers for the lightning. That would drop it further to about 130-150 miles.

I'm confused. You said you subtracted off the top 10% and the bottom 10%?

TBH, comparing my Model Y to the Lightning, the only range issue that I see is the charge speeds. The Lightning's 400V CCS system limits it a bit, so charge times would be quite a bit higher on longer trips.

Yeah, you pretty much have to do that with any EV.

You don't want to frequently charge over 90% to preserve the integrity of the battery. Same with the bottom 10%. You don't want to frequently drive the car down to 1%. I think it's not a huge deal if you drive it down to 5% or so, but as an owner of an EV, it gets pretty scary to go below 10% before you charge if you're on a trip. If the wind speed/ temp/etc gets out of control, it can sap your battery before you make it to the next station.

Ignoring 20% of the battery is pretty much the standard on today's EVs.

Important to note that many tesla models under-perform their EPA estimates when tested in more real world conditions while most other manufacturers tie or outperform them, sometimes substantially [1].

The Mach-E for instance has a -48 mile EPA range compared to an M3LR but only a -4 mile range in the edmund's test.

Same for Taycan, EPA rating of 203, edmunds got 323.

Tesla M3P EPA is 310 but edmunds got only 256.

When you factor in actual expected range and price (especially the federal tax credit) Tesla's range advantage is rapidly disappearing and as far as I'm aware there isn't anything coming down the pipe that will radically change that (4680s maybe, but we haven't seen any of the touted benefits proved out yet).

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...

I tend to prefer the insideevs 70 mph test, as its closer to a practical test, but yes, the range in the real world is different from the rated range to varying degrees.

Teslas tend to come pretty close to their EPA highway rating when tested on the highway under similar circumstances. But the EPA highway rating isn't the one that gets advertised. :sigh

That makes a lot of sense, most people talking about range don't care about commuting range but care a lot about # of recharges to travel some long distance so it stands to reason that highway numbers are more valuable than a combined metric.

Although for me traveling up and down 95 is so slow that I end up hitting the city number on my hybrid :)

Isn’t F150 range calculated with 1000 pounds cargo?

I saw some speculation of that, but it isn't clear that its actually true.

I think it is brand and their charging network.

Supercharger network, much longer range, significant investment in battery technology that should make their cars comparatively cheaper, FSD when it arrives, fantastic safety scores and cult like brand loyalty. Tesla has a lot going for it atleast for the next 5-10 years.

However the amount of these trucks ford can produce is very small. Their head start for launch is pretty meaningless.

> Their head start for launch is pretty meaningless.

You're comparing something that exists to something that doesn't yet exist, and you have no information on future volume, then calling the first thing "meaningless." I don't understand that at all.

Your point is entirely predicated on Tesla producing Cybertruck in such large volumes that it dwarfs Ford's F-150 Lightning, but you have no factual basis for that claim.

The drama here for all of this is that we're seeing the century of R&D invested into making cars compressed into a decade for replicating that work for electric vehicles.

They're comparable, but not identical, so domain knowledge for one doesn't always translate into the other. Witness the Bolt / LG Chem battery fiasco.

So yes, Ford is the first (or second? third?) over the line to make engineering samples available to the public. They also have their ICE platforms to fall back on if they don't execute perfectly. Plenty of time no worries.

Tesla (and rivian?) are in the deep end without any option but to figure out how to swim / mass produce their product, so they've got incentive to execute.

There are plenty of companies that got their product to market only to be destroyed by warranty burdens. It is instructive that the bolt was first to market (vs the model 3).

So the story hasn't been told yet, but certainly tesla's not in a position of strength here.

I wouldn't say that he has no factual basis. Ford is aiming for a run rate of 5k/week by the middle of next year.

We know that this was considered the minimal benchmark for the Model 3 and that their targets for CT are higher.

Its a guess about future state, so surely not certain, but noone has this "won" by getting ~50k units done over the next 12 months.

> We know that this was considered the minimal benchmark for the Model 3

You say that as though, oh no problem Tesla will have that minimal benchmark immediately. But in reality, it wasn't until 2 years after they started delivering the model 3 that they hit that "minimal benchmark" for it.

Well, sort of... first deliveries were in Q3 2017. By Q3 2018 they were failing to hit 5k, but that still meant 4k/week. Just ~6 months after that, they were at 5,500 per week.

If they failed like that again, they'd still catch up pretty quickly. I have doubts, though. Cybertruck doesn't seem to be getting the same attention and drive behind its launch that the 3 did.

> the amount of these trucks ford can produce is very small. Their head start for launch is pretty meaningless.

Far from it. One, they're pre-selling (note: selling, not taking deposits for). Two, they're making 150,000 a year and plan to make 600,000 in 2023 [1], the latter representing about 5% of the American light truck market [2] and about 50% of the total number of vehicles Tesla builds in a year [3].

[1] https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1134628_ford-f-150-ligh...

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/199981/us-car-and-truck-...

[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/715421/tesla-quarterly-v...

"It's aiming to make 600,000 EV's per year by the end of 2023" means that they plan on making 600,000 EV's per year in 2024.

And that's the measure that matters. A truck isn't available unless you can buy it, and given the number of pre-orders that both Cybertruck and F-150 have, unless you already have a reservation you won't be able to buy either truck until annual production reaches the 500,000/yr mark or so. And it looks like both Tesla and Ford will reach that rate at about the same time, so the race is on. Hopefully Ford has secured enough batteries to reach that level, because that's likely going to be the limiting factor.

You have misunderstood the goals in the green car reports article (or maybe they did). They aren't at 150k a year now, they hope to be at that run rate by mid-2023.

Deliver first, deliver often. Figure the rest out later. Startup playbook.

The F-150 is the best selling vehicle in the United States.

They almost quadrupled output from 40,000 to 150,000 because of demand.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/25/ford-f-150-lightning-ele...

Getting US consumers to want EV’s in large numbers is the real problem. Sounds like Ford is getting people excited. I’m sure they’ll be ready to double output as needed.

I own a model S but I think the F-150 is truly the next competitor. Other cars were either niche (Taycan) or not that great (i3, leaf). The bolt really was the second best option. Lucid is great too but they're not to scale yet.

Once the lightnings are easy to acquire at a dealership, I think Tesla will have its work cut out for it. The F150 is the best selling car/anything in the US.

The VW ID.4 is very real competition.

Yeah, I've heard good things about it but haven't been able to see one in Los Angeles yet. Polestar has a nice car too. I've been wanting to drive one.

A company so run by accountants that they needed to have “left, right and front/rear-toggle” power window button instead of a power window button for all four windows. No thanks

The Ford Mach-E seems to be well received.

Yeah, it's a solid car. I wasn't a fan of its suspension, but a lot of people don't seem to care!

i’m done with dealerships. i wish ford and gm had created clean-sheet, direct-to-consumer sub brands for their electric products. and didn’t gm do something pretty radical when they rolled out saturn in the 80s (separate dealers with non commissioned staff)? they could have at least done that. instead we get markup and sleaze.

Yeah, that must be a huge boon to tesla orders. Go on a website, click some buttons, wait, and your car is delivered. People underestimate a low-bs process.

I hate having to wheel and deal. I usually go through craigslist or some other marketplace since I buy used and it's so much better than having to worry about coatings, etchings, addons, and warranties.

The flip side is that you have a choice of business to work with for the rest of the life of the vehicle. There are huge problems with the availability and quality of service for Tesla right now.

If a dealer does bad work or tries to scam you, you can find another one. If Tesla denies your warranty claim you're out to dry.

Agree with you 101% on the dealer buying experience. Even just doing some shopping/research these days has left a sour taste in my mouth for buying another vehicle that way.

That being said, Ford has announced they're splitting their company into two: One for ICE vehicles, one for all electric. They're not saying much about who'll be handling the selling/distribution of the electric vehicles in the future. And dealer associations are rattling their legal sabers looking for answers.

Also, VW and their announced release of an all new Scout, under it's own brand, has also made little comment if current VW dealerships will carry it or what...

So there seems to be a move by Ford and VW to try (with new brands) the direct sales route with delivery/service centers similar to Tesla. However, that may be a long time coming with all the potential legal battles, etc.

I, however, also wonder if this move by VW/Ford is just to get the dealer associations to spend more lobby money and get direct-to-consumer car sales illegal in many more states, which seems the likely move by Dealers. This, then, would be a feign by the Manufacturers to hurt on particularly strong brand in the EV space.

Dealerships are headed for trouble.

EVs won't have oil changes, regular brake work, oil leaks, etc. There will be occasional air-conditioner repairs or window problems, but the bread-and-butter service revenue from ICE vehicles will be gone.

Dealerships might not be profitable enough to stay.

The base-model F150, if Ford can actually meet demand in any reasonable way, would create a real value-offering that threatens Tesla.

The additional levels of trim on the F150 are decent (esp. extended range) but the base model is amazing value for the price.

Hopefully this puts pressure on Tesla to stop touting the high end BS (like dodgy autopilot) and focus on adequate value for their base models.

It will definitely put price pressure on Tesla. Or so I hope.

Tesla always accrued competition pretty fast in whatever domain it explored, its big advantage being brand and battery life.

For my part while I'd like a vehicle with Tesla autonomy, the appalling QA/finish (Teslas still look cheap) and the support policies mean I'll go to an EU or Asian brand when I finally pick an EV (at least if there's anything left by that time that doesn't look like some trashy gamer mouse on wheels).

Very happy to report that the QA and finish on the Teslas built in Berlin and Shanghai are so much better than the ones in the USA. A whole other level.

I’ve heard that before, which is just kind of sad. It proves they’re capable of it, they just don’t care (at least in the US).

I think the difference is that cars built in a 40 year old factory with 40 year old equipment aren't as high quality as cars built in a new factory.

It will be interesting to see the quality of cars that come out of Austin.

Plenty of other electric cars on the market now too - many of them decent competition.

Alkso Tesla hasn't shipped a truck. Rivian has shipped, Ford has now shipped. If and when the Cybertruck makes it to market, Ford and Rivian will finally see some competition.

Once GM gets on the electric pickup market, it's game over for the wonky Tesla unless they end up selling exclusively to the types who don't actually do truck stuff (the G-Wagon crowd).

GM is already shipping the Hummer. It’s just really expensive so they won’t be a viable competitor for most of the market until the Chevy version arrives.

I ended up getting so tired of the CYBERTRUCK wait that I cancelled my deposit and ordered a Rivian. No doubt even though the wait is still long for me, I see them on the road regularly now and strongly suspect I’ll have one in hand long before the first CYBERTRUCK delivers to anyone.

Personally I’m excited for some competition. Tesla appears to have a big battery lead and is innovating with the assembly process. Without competition there’s been no reason to include vehicle 2 home power and cause extra wear on the battery pack, Tesla previously said the cybertruck won’t have V2H, but now that it’s offered with the F150, I hope they reconsider (I’ll probably cancel my CT preorder and get a Lightning if they don’t)

It’s nice, but I do lust for the stainless steel of the Cybertruck. My Dodge Ram looks like shit after just a few years due to paint chips, rust, etc. It’s really quite disappointing for a vehicle meant to be on job sites and other rough environments.

I still want to learn more about the logistics of cybertruck repairs. When the body is the frame, does a fender-bender total the vehicle?

I don’t think it is a single piece. If you look at this video [0] you’ll see all the breaks which look similar to a normal vehicle.

[0] https://reddit.com/r/cybertruck/comments/uvg7tm/another_look...

No. You simply wait the 14 months it takes to get a new one. Last I heard my brother was waiting like a year for him to use his Model 3 again after an accident, and instead had to borrow our Mom's old van.

It's disheartening when I want to build out in a new van soon and the only electric van on the US market is the Ford E-Transit with an abysmal 130 mile range when loaded down. Local dealership has two on the lot that are already spoken for by businesses. When asked about ordering one the sales reps told me "maybe 2023" as they were more than 9 months out from getting their next batch which was also spoken for already.

I'm starting to get the feeling that supply chain issues are going to be prevalent for the rest of the 2020 decade.

2022 Transit order books closed months ago. The 2023 order book information and opening dates land tomorrow (so goes the rumor) in the USA. iirc deliveries of 2023 Transits are projected to start in the fall.

The 130 mile range on the E-Transit is plenty for the current target customers who are buying them as fast as Ford can make them, but not enough for more rural uses. Give it time, more electric vans are coming. Rumor was that 2023 would see introduction of an actually orderable Ram Promaster, probably as a 2024 model but with optionally more battery than the current E-Transit.

are you guys going to get the vw van?

I’d guess not because it’s significantly smaller. It is cool though!

If the ID Buzz long wheelbase version is offered as a 5-seater (2 front seats, 3 bench 2nd row) then I would consider it once it comes out. The ID Buzz is significantly smaller than even the smallest Transit van, it sounds likely to be more comparable to the Transit Connect in the USA. 2 very different size classes.

I'm still a bunch of years away from a new vehicle purchase, but the long wheelbase ID Buzz is still a bunch of years away from general availability in the USA. So things might line up. The key spec I'm waiting on is roof load limit, if it's in the 150lb range then that will exclude it from my consideration as with a smaller interior size I would want/need to use the roof for various loads which would fit inside a normal full size van or in the bed of a pickup.

I hope its successful. I'm leaning more towards GM's Brightdrop van if I can get one as a consumer for an Electric Camper Van project.

e-vans are not there yet unfortunately. deliveries is a huge issue because of supply chain issues but also price point / load capacity / mileage is a big issue ...

I really hope in 3 years we have competitive e-vans so that we leave diesel vans behind

Sounds very cool but the 2022 F-150 HEV model was pretty impressive was well [0].

[0]: https://transportation.report/vehicles/2022-ford-f150-pickup...

I would contend this is at least part of the reason why Elon has been engaging in so many antics lately: to keep this out of the news. Ford even held a press event in mid-May[0] but there was hardly any coverage due in no small part to the distraction caused by the Twitter buyout news. Since most professional journalists pretty much live on Twitter, they talked about little else during the time. Meanwhile there is still no ship date in sight for Tesla’s “Cybertruck”, is there?

Lest anyone think that this is a silly idea in terms of the amount of money being spent, it’s worth noting that at least one article claims Ford’s F-series truck business produces revenue of about $42B annually[1], which is coincidentally (wink, wink) very close to the amount of Elon’s Twitter purchase ($44B), something to consider before dismissing the idea as not possibly worth it.

[0] https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2021...

[1] https://thenewswheel.com/ford-f-series-42-billion-revenue-20...

Those numbers have absolutely no relation to each other. What would be the point? Those $42B of revenue are from the ICE line, not EVs, so how would a couple weeks of publicity even affect that?

I don’t see how two different things being around 40B makes them connected.

I’m surprised this odd speculation is the top comment.

i think its much more likely he was trying to distract from stories about him sexually harassing people

This doesn't even sort of make sense. Twitter was in the news and this wasn't because Twitter is actually a bigger story: you're right that most journalists live on Twitter, so, its policies have massive influence on the national discourse as a whole. Ford releasing a very expensive truck to the few people who want and can afford very expensive trucks is a niche story.

Very expensive truck? It’s right in-line with ICE pickups they make and about half the price of the other two EV pickups nicely equipped.

It starts at around $40k. That's expensive for a car. Most people are not buying new vehicles, electric or otherwise.

That's less than the average price paid for a new vehicle in 2021.

Add in the TCO savings you get by buying an EV, and $40K is competitive with the price of a used vehicle.

https://www.autoweek.com/news/trucks/a32945300/ford-averages...

This article says the average selling price of an F150 was $47k in 2018 and they sold 900k of them.

Seems like a pretty sizable market considering that’s about how many vehicles Tesla sold last year total.

You’re right that most people buy used vehicles, but over 10 million of new cars are sold every year in the US alone.

  I would contend this is at least part of the reason why Elon has been engaging in so many antics lately: to keep this out of the news.

FUD. Elon has been pushing for an EV future since day 1, that’s why Tesla’s patents are open source.

That depends on if you believe that’s the real and sole reason their parents are open source.

https://startupnation.com/manage-your-business/teslas-open-s...

If I’m interpreting[0] that article correctly, it sounds like if a company uses a Tesla patent they must agree to terms that grant Tesla access to derived works. Considering the enormous risk Tesla took by building the first EV company, it seems like fair use to me.

[0] not a lawyer

I think if that were true, we'd see Tesla a lot more focused on building and testing more prototypes. Maybe they'd even get them to production at the expense of Y volume.

Instead they seem to be laser focused on maximizing Y and to a lesser extent 3 production.

I'm kind of torn here - great, it's electric and not a gas-guzzler. But how many people actually need a 3 ton vehicle? Just the carbon footprint of building the thing must be insane, forget the damage to the road etc.

Edit: just to be clear: I'm not questioning the business logic here, clearly people are buying these things. But it's makes this kind of news bittersweet - if we want to get out of this mess, we're going to have to convince people to stop buying this type of thing

Trucks are popular in the US. Not sure where you're from but the F-150 is the most popular truck in the US. Therefore, making it available in an electric model makes a lot of sense.

Most people don't need an F-150 with a combustion engine, but that doesn't stop them from getting it. In much the same way that they won't need a 3 ton electric truck, it won't stop them from getting it.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not questioning the business model, I know trucks are popular and I'm sure they'll sell hundreds of thousands. What I mean is that for me this type of news is a silver lining around a massive dark cloud of people driving full speed into the climate catastrophe. Yey, an electric vehicle... that's a 3 ton truck that 99% of buyers don't actually need.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The alternative then is to build the same truck, but keep it as a combustion engine. You're not going to stop people from buying a truck. Which truck do you want them to buy?

Which is worse?

Ford could make a smaller truck with the same size bed, or longer, with a shorter height and narrower width, and shave 1000 lbs or more off the gross vehicle weight. These new trucks are enormous compared to what was standard 20-30 years ago, for really no good reason.

Would you ask them to do that even if it meant less sales?

They have a smaller electric truck, the Maverick. However, some people want something larger. I imagine we’ll see an all-electric Ranger in the next year or two.

It’s not entirely organic though. “Light trucks” get a tax deduction for business owners and slip through a lot of regulatory cracks regarding fuel economy standards. From there, marketing actually has a bigger hand in shaping consumer demand than people give it credit for. They sell these cars to sell a certain lifestyle aesthetic of manliness.

If the production incentives were different, there’s no reason we can’t imagine they’d have tried to code rugged manliness as a rugged 4x4 like was popular in the 90s or an absurd muscle car like was popular in the 70s instead.

Trucks are classified into groups based up how much payload they can carry. The F-150 is Ford's 1/2 ton light duty truck. F-250 their 1 ton truck and the F-350 their 2 ton truck. If you want a 3 ton truck you are getting into commercial vehicles.

If you are discussing trucks and want to talk about gross vehicle weight you should probably clarify that is what you are referring to.

OP, and therefore myself, were talking about the weight of the vehicle, not the payload capacity.

The F-150 Lightning weighs just over 4 tons.

Also, you got it wrong. F-150 is a half ton, correct. The F-250 (and 2500 from RAM/GM) are 3/4 ton. While the F-350 (and 3500) are 1 ton trucks.

Few of the buyers actually need them, but they were going to buy the ICE version otherwise.

Do you have any factual data to back up your statement that few buyers of a F-150 need a F-150?

I own a F-150 and know many people that also own one. Most of the people I know with them regularly haul or tow payloads which require it. I use my F-150 at least once a week to haul a multiple horse trailer. In the summer I also use it regularly to access my beach house which is only accessible with a 4 wheel drive vehicle. A few times each summer I also use it to help haul those who think AWD is the same thing off the nearby beach.

I live in a suburban condo development. Most of my neighbors have no idea what I use my F-150 for and I'm sure think it serves no useful purpose.

> I use my F-150 at least once a week to haul a multiple horse trailer. In the summer I also use it regularly to access my beach house which is only accessible with a 4 wheel drive vehicle.

Good for you, but hopefully you realize that this is not a typical lifestyle.

I know plenty of people that have and need their trucks, but most of them would be fine without one. I have a good friend that justifies his truck by towing a jet-ski that any car could tow and most truck owners I know fall into this camp. They have an occasional need for something that can tow or haul and usually a minivan or crossover would be fine or better.

I’ve owned three trucks and still have an old one. I fall into the don’t really need one but like one category as I suspect most do. Didn’t say anything was wrong with it.

I consider myself better off than average, and I don't have enough money to buy the toys that necessitate an F150 or larger truck. Just the nature of things that heavy, those toys are usually pretty expensive. You get raked over the coals for an F150 or larger to begin with. You BETTER need it. Or have inherited some money, because the money I work for ain't going towards it.

I'm looking at Ford Mavericks. I really just need the bed, at most. I've owned trucks and SUVs before, and prefer compact pickups over everything else. I could easily use a 5x8" flatbed trailer and gain extra space with a crossover SUV, which is the smart move for people that have the space for a trailer.

I'm lucky to even be buying a house, let alone a full frame pickup and a heavy trailer like a horse trailer. I'd rather pay off a mortgage. Without affordable compact pickups coming back, I wouldn't ever have one again. I was leaning towards small crossover SUVs and hatchbacks with a trailer.

I'm not sure what a typical lifestyle is but I know it probably varies greatly from place to place. You certainly have some definition of it in mind. It is a fairly typical lifestyle among the people I know. The point really was that there are a lot of lifestyles that people with trucks are living that you are unaware of.

Beyond that if you look at the states where the highest percentage of vehicles are pickup trucks you will notice a trend. Most of them are largely rural, have harsh weather and agriculture is a significant industry.

Most consumer vehicles in the USA are already right around 2 tons unloaded. Even small pickup trucks have GVWR of 3 tons (my Chevrolet Colorado which is a mid-sized truck has a 6000 lb GVWR). A 3 ton vehicle is not THAT big, here.

If you actually use a pickup truck to do pickup truck things more than a few times per month, it's not cost effective to own a different vehicle.

I really wonder why cargo trailers aren’t more popular. You can put a tow hitch on a friggin Miata and still haul as much stuff out of Home Depot as you want.

For me, a cargo trailer is something else I have to buy, register, fix, and store. A truck isn't really any more expensive than any other vehicle which can carry 5 people comfortably. A Ford Maverick is comparable in cost to a small car, a Ford Ranger is comparable in cost to a mid-sized car, and a Ford F150 has more passenger room than pretty much anything that looks like a "car".

They’re not comparable in running costs though.

A Subaru Outback can tow 3,500 pounds. Enough for a small fishing boat, pop-up camper or utility trailer and gets 30 mpg when not towing and rides better.

A Ranger or F-150 can’t match that economy, but they beat it in towing for sure.

Not just that, but I can imagine in an EV future having trailers that work as a reserve battery/range extender as well. There would need to be some major redesign to make them handle better than a cargo trailer, and probably redesign the charging ports on the cars as well as 100 other things. But it would be a great way to blunt some of the compromises with owning a teeny roadster.

To get 3500 lb towing in an Outback you have to get the turbo engine which is only available a few trim levels up from the base and the EPA says you'll average 26MPG combined. A Ford Ranger 4x4 gets an EPA combined estimate of 22MPG.

A turbo Outback starts at $35k as you have to go a few trim levels up to get the turbo engine. A base 4x4 crew cab Ford Ranger starts at around $32k.

An F150 hybrid, although definitely higher in purchase price, gets an EPA combined rating of 23MPG, but can tow and haul a significantly larger amount than even a Ranger.

It all depends on what you want to do as to what vehicle you should purchase. The benefit of modern pickup trucks is that they CAN do all the things a normal car can do, plus they can do lots of towing and hauling chores, and the fuel economy penalty really isn't that significant.

In my experience actual fuel economy can vary quite significantly from EPA ratings. The F150 hybrid gets great fuel economy for what it is, but on the highway it’s still not that great and it costs quite a bit more. Something comparable to a $35k Outback would be over $50k.

How many people need to live in a house with more than 1,200 square feet?

How many people need to set the A/C below 80F or the heat above 60F?

How many people need to fly to Hawaii for a vacation? Drive to the beach.

How many people need to drive to the beach? Stay at home and knit.

How many people need to have kids? Each kid has a huge carbon footprint.

How many people need to drive to the mountains to go skiing?

Most things that make life easier, more pleasant, or more fun, are not needs.

I kind of agree with all those points? We have to change our behaviour fast, because those with real needs (the poor family trying to eke out a subsistence living in rural india) are going to feel the full brunt of the Co2 we and our neighbours have been spewing out our whole lives. And instead we're congratulating ourselves on building electric status symbols

> And instead we're congratulating ourselves on building electric status symbols

Isn't this how you drive change? You have to give people the desire to change before they can actually change...unless you think authoritarianism is a solution (not saying you do, but I'm not sure what other options there are other than 1) give people the opportunity and desire to change, or 2) force them to change).

The speed at which we are changing aside...we ARE changing as a society, and that should be celebrated.

Is it our obligation to ensure adequate quality of life for every human on the entire planet?

Why stop at improving their lives by reducing our CO2 emissions? Why not institute a 10% income tax on all Americans and send that money and resources to subsistence farmers in rural India? That would surely improve their lives and help their "real needs" even more.

How much of your income do you donate to subsistence farmers in rural India? For many people, the answer is "none".

Why is there an expectation that we are obligated to improve the lives of subsistence farmers in rural India by reducing our carbon footprint, but not an expectation that we should donate money?

There’s a clear ethical distinction between not actively helping someone and actively harming them. I don’t have to lend my neighbor my lawnmower, but I definitely shouldn’t shit on his grass

I'd actually go one step further and say that these ARE needs, if the goal is to live a fulfilling life that is worth bringing children into...and what are we if not tools for propagating the human race?

A 3-ton truck, for the vast majority of its buyers, makes their lives harder and less pleasant but they do it anyway because of desires manufactured by marketing and vanity.

Correct. And this is why, at the population levels of the world, the future is bleak in terms of the environment. Our way of life at the current population levels is not sustainable.

I don't think it's a fair comparison with most of those things; a smaller house is actually smaller, a warmer/colder house is actually a different temperature. A lighter vehicle doesn't have to make any material difference to the driver.

To take it further, you're mostly listing luxury items. No one needs an iPhone, internet or TV either.

You could ask the same questions about virtually every vehicle on the road. A model x weighs in at slightly over 2.5 tons. A model y is about 2.25 tons.

I'm not torn, this is a disaster. In my town people who want to signal how "green" they are, but who are too lazy to ride a bicycle, buy a Tesla (used to be a Prius, and before that it was a diesel VW, Volvo, or Mercedes). At least until quite recently, this has prevented monster trucks from being in style. But now, you can have a monster truck and greenwash at the same time. It's going to ruin the roads and kill a bunch of pedestrians. There's already half a dozen Rivian R1Ts, despite the local 3-ton weight limits.

> despite the local 3-ton weight limits.

That's a reference to carrying capacity, not the actual GVW. A Honda Accord weights over 3 tons GVW.

Incorrect.

14.56.070 A. It is unlawful for any person to operate any commercial vehicle exceeding three tons gross vehicle weight on the following portions of streets, hereafter referred to as "restricted streets"

> There's already half a dozen Rivian R1Ts, despite the local 3-ton weight limits.

> 14.56.070 A. It is unlawful for any person to operate any commercial vehicle exceeding three tons gross vehicle weight on the following portions of streets, hereafter referred to as "restricted streets"

I think you probably meant 14.56.050, which restricts vehicles over 5 tons from traveling on 5 streets. The law you cited is for commercial vehicles only and has a litany of exceptions but would permit the Rivian for personal use.

In California, every pickup truck is registered commercial, by law.

I really wish people who aren't from my city or state would stop arguing from their ignorant suppositions.

I live in California and I've never heard of this but I've only been here a couple years and don't own a truck so I'm still learning the laws.

Reading further, 14.56.080 defines 1 ton as 2000 lbs so 3 tons is 6000 lbs. The Rivian is 5800 lbs so it's legal. What am I missing?

A Honda Accord with a 6000 lb. GVWR seems odd given its curb weight is < 3400 lbs and it only holds 5 people.

Yeah, not sure what I was thinking.

It's about not letting perfect be the enemy of good. Yes, this thing is way too big and heavy for what almost all of its buyers need, but it's still a hell of a lot better than the gas version. A gas F-150 will use over 50 tones of gas. The electric version will use 30 kg of lithium, for sure, but they are both mined, and one is even recyclable.

I totally agree with your point (which is why I think electric cars are a good idea in general, as opposed to some who would argue that theyre a distraction from the real imperative of public transport and "short distance living"). But there's a pretty big gap between perfect and an electric truck. A towbar on a standard electric car would cover everything that these people actually need

The F150 can tow 10,000 lbs trailer. Something that I tow once in a while. While an electric car might be able to move that much, it won't be safe, something not designed for the load you tow will roll over.

I think the point you are missing is it's a bit arrogant for you to tell people what they need. An electric truck with additional features to entice drivers to buy is how change is going to happen. Don't try to remove or restrict people. It won't work. Electric truck is one step in a correct direction of compromise.

Yeah, an electric Maverick or Ranger would be pretty great. Just like Tesla started with the higher end Model S, and eventually got to the higher volume Model 3, I'm assuming Ford is starting with the higher end (and presumably margin) Lightning, and will get to lower price points eventually.

Prior to COVID, Ford was selling 900k F-150s per year (their highest volume vehicle line). Continuing on their path those will all be Lightning models - a large number of very heavy, energy intensive vehicles driving around.

You left out the extra grid power needed to move these things. Which negates some of the gaz guzzling benefit, if more people move up to heavier vehicles. Which they are, apparently half of the pre-orders have come from people who never owned a truck before.

It's interesting to note that these more "environmental" EVs are resuscitating Hummer, which was already killed off for being a gas guzzler

You might be interested in the Federal push for hydrogen fuel cell evs as the carbon foot print is smaller compared to the overhyped current electric vehicles: -green way to generate hydrogen and fertilizer already found -hydrogen fuel cells have weight advantages over current evs -hydrogen fuel cells are cost economically advantaged to replace traditional diesel transportation in trucking, trains, boats, etc.

Green hydrogen uses about 3x as much electricity per mile than just using the electricity directly in an EV. I'm not sure how that can have a smaller carbon foot print.

A Toyota Mirai weighs more than a Tesla Model 3, so there's no weight advantage.

Good point.

It barely weighs more though. I wonder if the weight increases much with capacity as it does with batteries?

I need one about 1% of the time. However when I need a truck it is for things I can't rent a truck to do. Most rental trucks don't have the right brake controller for a large trailer (rental trailers have surge brakes - I'm never going back to them), and often they don't have the right hitch (permanent 2 inch ball - 2-5/8 balls are common, as a 5th wheel or gooseneck). I keep getting people telling me to rent a truck, while it would save a ton of money, in practice it isn't possible.

life is filled with things we don't need. We don't need 5G. We don't need internet. Datacenters are pretty big carbon footprints. Are you going to be a general home contractor with a Mini Cooper? Are you getting into the forest for camping in your Mini Cooper? How about camping with a family of 4 or 5?

I do. And the carbon footprint of building the thing is deep in the noise compared to the CF of the use phase of an ICE truck. In other words switching from ICE to an electric truck makes a dramatic positive difference for the planet if you account for both trucks' entire lifecycle.

I live in a rural area and I need a truck for hauling and for towing four different kinds of trailer. I drive my diesel truck sparingly these days because its CF bothers me. I'd trade it for an F-150 Lightning tomorrow if the F-150 was actually available.

> But how many people actually need a 3 ton vehicle?

Much of this is marketing from the Big 3 over the last 25 years. They've been driving consumers to larger truck platforms with marketing for decades. The truck platforms are cheaper and easier to produce than alternatives. It allows them to share parts across more of their portfolio.

A lot of the marketing over the last 30 years has been targeting fragile egos. I thought maybe we jumped the shark when they started selling baby wipes in black packaging as Man/Dude wipes but apparently not.

I have no doubt that in the near future Huggies and Luvs will convince men that it's tough to wear black diapers and crap their pants while doing many things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com