The F150 EV Lightning thread

frenchyd said:

   Without actually doing it yourself you have no idea of the complexity of landing on a carrier in rough seas at night.  If 20 year old fighters can put the 160 mph plane down on  a 50'x300' area do you really believe a car traveling 50 mph won't be capable of being driven?  

Believe it or not, that carrier landing is actually a much more constrained problem than driving down the street.  Obviously it requires a great deal of precision, which is obtained through the use of landing system aids, lights, ILS beacons, etc.  Fundamentally though it is a limited problem because the number of unexpected cases is minimal.  Carrier decks don't tend to have cross traffic that's running a red light, kids darting out onto them from behind a tree chasing a ball, police officers directing traffic around road construction (thus meaning you need to ignore the traffic lights), or any of a million other things that happen on real streets in the real world.

We can make a computer solve pretty much any specific problem that we want.  Unfortunately, "self driving car" is a general problem, not a specific one.

How did self-driving cars end up in this thread? I'm not sure why EVs and self-driving get tangled up so much. Neither has anything to do with the other, except that Tesla is willing to push the envelope (imho) far beyond their cars' capability currently.

In reply to Erich :

I think it may be because they are both emerging technologies and it is natural to think that where one is present, the other is.

Doesn't Ford have a self parking feature for the F150 for a few years now to make backing a trailer a no-brainer?  I know Toyota has had self parking cars for a decade at least...

Erich said:

How did self-driving cars end up in this thread? I'm not sure why EVs and self-driving get tangled up so much. Neither has anything to do with the other, except that Tesla is willing to push the envelope (imho) far beyond their cars' capability currently.

It's confusing.  The most successful EV is also the most advanced.  Self driving is pushing the envelope.  But you are right. EV's don't need self driving to function. 
      I'm a person who try's to look ahead. For me and those my age we need to plan  our end game. Modern cars should last 20+ years. That's the furthest  I can see myself driving.  So everything that will aide me in achieving that goal I will want.  

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

   Without actually doing it yourself you have no idea of the complexity of landing on a carrier in rough seas at night.  If 20 year old fighters can put the 160 mph plane down on  a 50'x300' area do you really believe a car traveling 50 mph won't be capable of being driven?  

Believe it or not, that carrier landing is actually a much more constrained problem than driving down the street.  Obviously it requires a great deal of precision, which is obtained through the use of landing system aids, lights, ILS beacons, etc.  Fundamentally though it is a limited problem because the number of unexpected cases is minimal.  Carrier decks don't tend to have cross traffic that's running a red light, kids darting out onto them from behind a tree chasing a ball, police officers directing traffic around road construction (thus meaning you need to ignore the traffic lights), or any of a million other things that happen on real streets in the real world.

We can make a computer solve pretty much any specific problem that we want.  Unfortunately, "self driving car" is a general problem, not a specific one.

 

Wow!   Landing on a rolling, pitching, corkscrewing spot 50'x300' at 160 mph is easy?  
      The LSO  would give me wave off signals because he knew I wasn't aligned properly.

  The problem was he was busy watching me and couldn't look over his shoulder at the same time to see the giant wave that would slap the carrier over making my line up on center #2 wire.  
      I was low on fuel  and probably didn't have enough to go around.  He was a Lt. Cmdr. with over 3000 hours compared to my 800 hours. I was required to obey his orders. In failing to obey his orders I could have been court Marshalled.  On center #2, low fuel, wouldn't have been justified if my CO hadn't had a quiet word on my behalf. 
      Gusting wind, cross directional waves, low visibility, rolling, corkscrewing. 160 mph. With all the variables of the aircraft, such as weight,  fuel state, ordinance, etc.  It's not like shooting at a target that doesn't move .  It's like shooting at an alerted running deer and hitting the heart. 
      I agree that Tesla doesn't have everything that can go wrong solved yet.  But then neither do a lot of drivers.  The examples you mentioned can and do result in incidents or death by drivers too.   
      I don't know which would be worse. A self driving Tesla or a drunk or otherwise impaired driver.  
 I just completed a 37 hour round  trip to near Washington DC from Minneapolis Minnesota.   I'm capable of safely doing that.  But I doubt most are.   With the aides a Tesla has it would be greater chance of a safe trip than the average motorist.  

frenchyd said:     

      I don't know which would be worse. A self driving Tesla or a drunk or otherwise impaired driver...
 I just completed a 37 hour round  trip to near Washington DC from Minneapolis Minnesota.     With the aides a Tesla has it would be greater chance of a safe trip than the average motorist. 

These two statements seem incongruous to me. Tesla's tech is the same advanced driving aides that pretty much everybody else in the industry offers now too. You can get them on Toyotas and Subarus and GMs and Fords and the German stuff. These driver aides come on ICEs and EVs. The Ioniq 5 has them. The Bolt EUV has them. The Mach E has them. They were probably an option on the ICE F150 that you recently bought. The only difference between Tesla's tech and other OEMs is that Tesla's seems to be more easily abused (and has the incident record to prove it) while other OEMs have more measures in place to prevent misuse. It's important to understand that these are driving aides, and not driver replacements. None of these driver aides are exclusive to Tesla. None of them are exclusive to EVs. None of them are really relevant to this thread as the Lightning will offer Ford's latest and greatest driver aides including hands free highway cruise.

4 posts earlier I said exactly that.  So we agree. 

  As far as accidents. Yes stupid people can buy any car. However if they do something stupid in a Tesla it gets national attention. But percentage wise I'm willing to wager fewer Tesla drivers have such problems than ICE drivers. 
 I heard about Steam punk. If I have it right it's sort of a mix of old and new.  
I love ICE carried to the extreme. 12 cylinders. But let's be honest. One power stroke out of 4? Pretty inefficient isn't it?Plus opening and closing different valves? some way to mix fuel and air and ignite it at the right time?  Then there is the issue of a torque curve that operates in the wrong direction, with peak torque at the wrong end of the curve.  
   A simple electric motor that is making peak torque at start up and nothing forced to start and stop like a piston. 
  Plus the source of energy isn't the North Sea, a desert or jungle at the far end of the world.   Sun shines everyplace, wind blows every place. Nuclear powered generators are safe, and there are plenty of dams generating hydro electric power. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Steam punk?  WTF?

Frenchy, you are ALL OVER THE MAP. And honestly, it's ruining this thread. 
 

Please stop interjecting things that are not about the F-150 Lighting. Self-driving aids, elderly drivers, aircraft carriers, statistics about death rates, the North Sea, nuclear power, and definitely steam punk are ALL completely useless drivel that are contaminating this thread. 
 

Please stop. 

SV reX said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Steam punk?  WTF?

Frenchy, you are ALL OVER THE MAP.

Agreed.

SV reX said:

Please stop. 

No, please dont!

In reply to ProDarwin :

There is no reason he can't tell more in another thread. I'm trying to learn about the Lighting. 

SV reX said:

In reply to frenchyd :

I am an advocate of re-testing elderly drivers every 5 years. I know you won't like that. 

Hell, I'm an advocate for retesting regular peeps at 5 years and oldies at 1-2 years. I've said this around my mother (who at 77 jumps between her z28 camaro and BMW x3m40) and she attempts smacking me.

SV reX said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

There is no reason he can't tell more in another thread. I'm trying to learn about the Lighting. 

The subject isn't a sales brochure for Fords truck.  If you want, Fords got them ready for you. It's about the concept of EV's and how they impact us. 
    As I've repeatedly said I like ICE's but accept that EV's are the future.  I justified that dichotomy explaining the benefits for the elderly. 
    Yes ICE's have a lot of the features that EV's including "self Driving".  I remember a while back Tesla was advertising that an owner could program his car to deliver itself to his door.   It's not a big leap to have the car deliver him to work and other autonomous  driving. 
 I also have repeatedly explained why ICE will be replaced with EV's. 
     This is a public forum.  Many different thoughts are expressed here.  Those that interest me I respond to.    

SV reX said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy I hear you, but your proposition is uncomfortable. You are suggesting that these driving aids can enable someone with physical limitations which should restrict their driving to be able to continue driving. 
 

That's not what they were designed for. Using them like that is an abuse of their design intent. 
 

I know this is harsh, but my opinion is that anyone who has physical limitations which inhibit their ability to operate a vehicle safely through the ENTIRE range of the vehicle's capabilities should stop driving. 
 

That's what I encouraged my mother to do. Anything less would have been putting other people at risk. 
 

I am an advocate of re-testing elderly drivers every 5 years. I know you won't like that. 

I'd be in favor of testing all drivers periodically.  You say 5 years?   OK. All drivers every 5 years. 
    It won't happen though. Drunks pay a fine and get their license back.  Repeated drunks  get whisky plates. Another conviction  then they have to blow into a breathalyzer.  
  Maybe they can get a great lawyer or the cop will make a mistake.  Then that doesn't count. 
    What if they Move to another state or get a international license?  
That's just one version of impairment. Hand controls is another form of impairment. The most valid form of objection to legalizing marijuana is the lack of roadside testing for that impairment. 
    PS. I have to get tested annually for medical  because of my CDL  plus every 7 years for my bus license the state tests me again. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Actually, this is not a public forum. It's privately owned. "Free speech" rights do not exist. You know that. You've been banned before. 
 

I asked if you would consider a courtesy to your fellow readers to try to keep the subject on track so that we can read it easier. 
 

I see you are not open to considering that. That makes me sad. 

frenchyd said:

I remember a while back Tesla was advertising that an owner could program his car to deliver itself to his door.

Tesla was lying.

Edit:  saw this article today about "full self driving":  https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-11/dmv-message-to-legislatures-ontesla-full-self-driving-safety-its-not-our-job

Finalized my order today. Should see it later august

We never discussed it, but a few weeks ago official EPA range estimates were released

So the Extended Range trucks ended up with 20 more miles of range than Ford was targeting in most configurations. The extended range battery has 131kwh of usable capacity, so that's an efficiency of 2.44 mi/kwh.

And window stickers have been out for awhile too with some additional info. From least expensive to most expensive:

Dangit I want that F150 ER fleet model

I've talked to several local dealers about ordering a few Lightenings and gotten crickets. Very frustrating.

In reply to ian sane :

I'm convinced the 150 EV will meet my needs now and in the future. But the unknowns for me make me want to try one first.  
  Unknowns like entry height, bed height,   Build quality.   My main object to my current F150 is how stupid high it is.  

In reply to frenchyd :

Now if they would this drivetrain in a Transit Connect...

frenchyd said:

In reply to ian sane :

I'm convinced the 150 EV will meet my needs now and in the future. But the unknowns for me make me want to try one first.  
  Unknowns like entry height, bed height,   Build quality.   My main object to my current F150 is how stupid high it is.  

Aren't the chassis specs the same as a regular f150? So bed height/entry height/etc are all the same as a gasser? Build quality is obviously up in the air but shouldn't be any different from any other ford product.

They may run it lower to the ground for better aero. All the various photos do look like it's relatively low, especially compared to a 4WD. I wouldn't be surprised if there were lowering kits on the market fairly quickly due to the performance abilities of the vehicle.

It'll never be an old Ranger from the standpoint of bed height because the truck is simply in a different size class.

In reply to STM317 :

Damn 320 miles of range is pretty damn good. Especially for urban use. 

Looking at those window stickers, you'll be able to tell if a news article is pro- or anti-EV by if they describe the vehicle as a $42k truck or a $94k truck. That's quite the price range. Looks like the ICE F150 starts at just over $30k and goes to over $84k before you start piling on options (I did select the hybrid engine and 4WD to get the latter number, as I think that's basically a separate model). But F150 MSRPs are usually a fictional number so that's unfortunately not very meaningful.

I'm interested to see how many they can actually get out there. Demand is high for sure, and Ford keeps bumping their production plans for the truck. I think the original 2023 production target was about 25k units, now it's 150k. That's still only about 15% of total F150 production. There's going to be a lot of interest when they hit the streets.