Ford, Not Tesla, Is Making the Electric Truck That Will Change the EV Industry(in.mashable.com)
in.mashable.com
Ford, Not Tesla, Is Making the Electric Truck That Will Change the EV Industry
https://in.mashable.com/tech/22422/ford-not-tesla-is-making-the-electric-truck-that-will-change-the-ev-industry
100 comments
Electric truck to get rural-centric areas on electric vehicles? Sounds great.
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.
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.
It seems particularly weird that they put that physical wheel at the bottom for a dedicated vehicle control area, but didn't bother to just, like, put individual buttons there.
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.
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.
> "instead of just, like, putting individual buttons there."
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.
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.
Am I correct in thinking that no other car company is doing meaningful updates regardless of the technology stack they’ve implemented? I have a Ram 1500 with a giant screen and lots of bugs in its software, but have yet (2+ years) to see any updates. I have a family member with a 3 year old Mercedes and it still apparently costs $500 to have the dealer update the GPS mapping (bizarrely competing with the free and far superior Google Maps or Apple Maps via Android Auto or CarPlay…)
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.
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.
That kind of thing is why I'm treating Android Auto/Apple CarPlay as a required feature for any future car I get, and treating the car's own infotainment system as merely a substrate for that functionality.
Android sounds great, devices using it absolutely get lots of updates long into the future.
Oh wait.
Oh wait.
The point with Android Auto (and CarPlay) is that it keeps working with future devices. Your current phone might stop getting updates, but your new one will work with your car too.
The interface is actually running on your phone, but using your car's display as an external display and touch input device.
The interface is actually running on your phone, but using your car's display as an external display and touch input device.
Cheaper? You mean $5 of plastic and rubber versus a overpriced tablet? Consumers lose functionality and gain nothing. I don't want to play angry birds or whatever Tesla offers, I want to hit the AC button for the AC, or the radio button for the radio. All cars have these basic features.
Buttons need to be designed, dash that fits those buttons need to be designed. They already get the touchscreen, adding smaller screen + buttons is more expensive than no buttons + larger screen.
I was kind of with you up until here. Radios at least are modular in most cars so you can just swap them out. I wouldn't be too surprised if everything else was designed this way at most car manufacturers but with a proprietary module system. Many seem to pick one or two design languages and at that point the buttons need to be designed one or two times.
Redesigned how, 90% of cars look the same, and it's been industry standard for years.
> 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.
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.
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.
There are already millions of Teslas and other vehicles on the road with touch screen interfaces. No lawsuits so far.
https://electrek.co/2020/08/04/tesla-wiper-controls-ruled-il...
Not exactly a lawsuit but on the judicial axis.
Not exactly a lawsuit but on the judicial axis.
You only have to search "Tesla touch screen lawsuit" to find that there have, in fact, been multiple lawsuits over problems with the touchscreen, as well as a recall of 135,000 vehicles.
That recall has nothing to do with the fact that it's a touch interface. The fault was a flash memory chip that would fail after a few years of use.
Why does a premium vehicle with a premium tablet have faulty components not seen even on consumer devices?
Because Tesla screwed up. The component itself (an 8GB e-MMC flash chip) actually wasn't faulty, but it was being misused/overused by constantly writing syslog data to it. Apparently this could amount to hundreds of MB of writes per day, with the device already mostly filled with firmware. After a few years of this it would exceed its write-cycle limit and start to fail.
As well as my general dislike of touchscreens, this is especially so in outdoorsy kit where you are prone to have dirty hands. You are then putting the dirt on the bit for seeing information.
Also, for me, outdoorsy kit should be operable in gloves. Vehicles with hearing are a bit of an exception I guess, but still.
Also, for me, outdoorsy kit should be operable in gloves. Vehicles with hearing are a bit of an exception I guess, but still.
> "Touchscreens at the helm? Bad plan. I'm very happy with physical buttons"
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.
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.
>The ideal interface here is really good, interactive voice. Hands-free and eyes-free.
Let me guess: your native language is American English and you have no "weird" accent.
Let me guess: your native language is American English and you have no "weird" accent.
I have an accent that Americans would consider pretty weird. Siri has absolutely no problems with it. Google Voice isn't bad either. These things are pretty internationalised now days, and will only get better in the future.
Tell that to my Siri, who thinks I am constantly asking for "Obama lights".
I’m sorry for your pain (I feel it too!) but I can’t figure out what Siri misheard as “Obama lights”..?
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
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
"Obama lights" is the most common mishearing when I ask Siri to turn on the "apartment lights".
>The ideal interface here is really good, interactive voice. Hands-free and eyes-free.
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...
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...
Voice control totally sucks in most cars right now, including Teslas. I'd imagine the reason why its dangerous is because people get frustrated with it and have to start poking around at controls/touch screens to correct whatever commands it misinterpreted.
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)
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)
> The ideal interface here is really good, interactive voice.
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.
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.
Even S class Mercedes went down this way by putting a silly looking tablet in the middle of the car. It just looks bad and as you said,I'd rather have physical knobs instead.
Having friends and family drive and being in passenger seat, never felt comfortable with people reaching for buttons, knobs for AC or radio. Interesting you find the single large touchscreen to be a bigger distraction/danger than the 20 different controls in a f150
Research shows touchscreens are much more dangerous. Even voice control is more dangerous than buttons in all but a few cases (siri and Tesla bad, Toyota okay, etc.).
What research? how is it more dangerous? If your tesla regulates AC well and spotify doesn't play Ads or bad radio signal or bad songs. Then you don't have a need to touch the buttons of the radio or the AC. Why the touchscreen is there, is to have nice entertainment while you're charging!
It's just savings -- it's cheaper and easier to update software buttons than hardware.
Lifetime Ford guy here, currently 7.3 Excursion. I'm pretty disappointed in the Lightning. Sure more utility, plugs, fancy lights and classic looks..... but the range, oooof. Can't do it. Very excited for my CyberTruck tri-motor with 500+ mile range.
So actual truck is not exciting but vaporware is.
Got it.
Got it.
Did you even read his comment? He clearly pointed out that the range is the limiting factor. I'm not sure about you but I like my cars to be drivable.
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.
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.
The point of the comment you're replying to is that so far there's no indication that the 500-mile-range Cybertruck will actually happen, or that it if it does happen it will happen anytime soon, given the company's history of overpromising and overpredicting on other functionality.
Thanks for explaining. My brain read "vaporwave" not "vaporware". Makes more sense now...I don't typically think of HN as a place where people love to argue about asthetics.
So far there's nothing to indicate when or if the 500-mile-range version will ever actually be released, and there's some question as to if the stated specs are even possible with the physical design and current battery tech.
> The base version with 230 miles of range starts at $39,974, while the 300-mile version begins at $90,000.
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?
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?
It doesn't actually start at 40k unless you buy a special commercial version. I think they will anti-sell this version as hard as they can and remove every feature they can from it.
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.
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.
More likely Ford's market segmentation. $40k for the base model suggests it's a loss-leader - or barely breaking even - or they're betting the entire model on expected continued price-drops in Lithium-Ion cells.
Pricing in the market economy is not based on cost of production. It's just one limiting factor for a price. Pricing is based on value for customer (value is here determined as willing to pay).
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.
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 300-mile version begins at $90,000."
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.
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.
The 300 mile version starts at $49,974, before incentives and tax credits [1].
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/ford-reveals-pricing-fo...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/05/ford-reveals-pricing-fo...
The trick is the $39999.999999 price is pure marketing and you wont be able to buy one, they will lottery off like 1000 units per quarter among the dealer network and get some great headlines about winning electric race.
The frunk is the game-changer here. A fair amount of easy-to-load, secure, waterproof storage, in the exact same external package as the gas version. But only possible with an EV. This, more than anything else, is what will pull people to the electric version. Maybe not today, but give it a few years, as people talk to their electric F-150 owning friends.
Something doesn't fully add up. Ford's $40k truck is allegedly based on a 125 kWh battery. Tesla's numbers are similar. The only cars anywhere close to such a huge battery all cost close to double.
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?
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?
I don't know about Ford, but Tesla will start with the more expensive version first.
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.
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.
I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu from the early days of the iPhone.
You mean the steady stream of "here's the iPhone killer" clickbait? Yeah, it's the same shit with anything Tesla ships.
That will be a city truck to go for groceries. Rural areas have very sparse infrastructure and 150mi on one charge means wasting half a day every two days recharging it.
That seems like an odd assumption. Rural areas are more likely to have ready access to charging infrastructure since garages and solar panels are all readily installed. Wouldn't it just be charging overnight?
I live in a rural area - 150 miles on a charge is close enough to get to the nearest major city and back on a single charge (and there is a EV charger on that route).
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.
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.
Plus gas is usually cheaper in Rural areas (at least where my son lives in North Dakota/Minnesota area)
You charge overnight every night so you have a full charge every morning. On the road, you use fast chargers to top it up in 30 minutes or so at a fraction of the cost you would use to fill up a petrol truck. Filling up an ice Ford truck costs a small fortune so stretching your legs for half an hour is a minor inconvenience compared to that. And of course if that's actually a regular thing in your life, you'd hopefully have the economic sensibility to drive something more fuel efficient than an ICE truck.
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.
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.
Funny how we compare massive century old companies to a startup and they still fight to stay relevant.
Only when the startup is preemptively considered the category winner and valued at multiples of the century-old companies (for some reason).
Isn't that the whole point of encouraging competition?
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..
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..
Is it bullet proof though?
Bold statement. Why not just wait and see who manages to deliver.
Isn't that the point of Tesla? Make a luxury electric car so people actually want to have one, then everyone switches to electric?
Tesla isn’t a luxury car by any metric other than price tag.
Tesla isn't a car. What model are you talking about?
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.
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.
Compare the Model X/S to even a mid range Audi/BMW/Benz/Volvo....
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.
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.
At this stage Tesla doesn't need or want to deliver luxury vehicles to begin with. It was a stepping stone to mass production. The next step is Model 2 or whatever they call it. Which is a smaller hatchback with lower price.
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.
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.
I drive a $300 car so my standards of luxury are fairly low.
How about fast, electric acceleration?
Tesla’s have insane acceleration but they aren’t that fast due to battery thermal management.
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.
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.
Some luxury cars are fast, not all fast cars are luxury cars.
We get it, you believe you have sole authority on deciding what luxury means, and if you're dismissive about something, we just have to go along for no reason other than you said with great confidence. I hope that attitude works great for you in life.
Look, I think we both can agree that nobody would describe a mclaren s720 with bucket seats as luxurious. It’s a sports car.
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.
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.
The category is literally called "luxury sports cars". And they're a luxury. But they're not luxury. Got it. Thank you for your insight.
"Sports car" and "luxury sports car" don't mean the same thing, the same way "passenger car" and "luxury passenger car" don't mean the same thing.
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.
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.
By whom? Googling that term shows that it’s not widely used and brings up cars like aston martin vantage and bentley continental gt, which are certainly luxurious and could reasonably (the bentley less so) be described as sports cars.
Can you find anyone that isn’t a SEO copywriter calling stripped down mclarens that way?
Can you find anyone that isn’t a SEO copywriter calling stripped down mclarens that way?
Ford squarely put the emphasis on utility while Tesla focused on beauty.
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.
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.
I mean, you can turn up on the construction site with a cyber truck or a F150 electric.
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?"
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?"
What more utility does the Ford have? Range is and charging speed are part of utility and the Tesla crushes the Ford on that.
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?
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?
When the backhoe takes an accidental bite out of the fender, you can order spares for the Ford. That is utility.
Tesla has mobile service, that can fix many things while you are working.
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.
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.
I’m talking about marketing.
Just look at both websites. Ford is like a laser focused on the truck as a work vehicle.
Just look at both websites. Ford is like a laser focused on the truck as a work vehicle.
How is the Cybertruck not focused on utility? It has a larger range, larger bed, more torque + HP, a ramp, you can stand on the bed (vault) cover, it can power electric tools, etc. Sure the Lightning can do some of that too but the Cybertruck seems even more useful to me.
The subtle utility of existing in the real world.
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.
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.
So far, none of these exist yet in the real world, so we'll see which one actually gets produced and sold first. I wouldn't be surprised if it's around the same time (sometime next year).
I find this funny as I have never head anyone state beauty as a strength of Tesla. If anything the opposite.
They will both sell like hotcakes. Its just a nobrainer for many applications. Ford doesn't have the battery supply to transition its fleet of 700k trucks. My bet would be that Tesla considerably outsells Ford in EV pickups for quite few years and maybe never catches up.
Why would Tesla have better access to batteries than other carmakers? Panasonic is not the only one making cells and it's not a given that Lithium-based batteries will even be the way to go forward.
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.
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.
Tesla is going into the business of battery making, and literally going into lithium mining. People need to watch Battery Day...
> Why would Tesla have better access to batteries than other carmakers?
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.
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.
People buy trucks for emotional reasons. The utility is there to help rationalize the decision.
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
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
>People buy trucks for emotional reasons.
Source?
Source?
You only need to look at the many people who buy trucks with large cabs and tiny beds and then never actually use the bed for anything, similar to how there are many people who buy three-row SUVs and then just use them as 'cooler' minivans.
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).
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).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27234039