Interesting video from Hank Green on the F150L

[chriserx]

I posted a AI transcript cause you all wanted it. It doesn't mean the whole video is AI...

I actually was referring to the ability to transcribe the videos, not the actual transcription. But I can see why you thought i did.

Sponsored

 

[RickLightning]

Never heard of any of those people.

 

[Firn]

Never heard of any of those people.

Of course not, thats the point. You have devised a system that wont over let you do so. That doesnt make them any less knowledgeable.

 

[ZeusDriver]

I watched the first 56 seconds, and started projectile vomiting. The fast cuts and fast talking are attempts to make a potentially boring subject "exciting" or "engaging." The presenter hopes that this approach will increase his income. The AI summary is a huge help, in the sense that in a one minute read, I can get the gist of what this unknown hyperbole generator is saying... which is not much, if you've followed the industry. The summary saves me almost half an hour. (... now down to 20 minutes, given the time to write this.)

The title is classic cheesy clickbait, foisting off an idiotic premise (that the logic of the Lightning is "bizarre") as a stunning revelation. The Lightning is a fairly well-designed product from an average company, with many average and useful features, and with various problem areas... just like most other vehicles. It is the product of the most ordinary logic as employed in an ordinary automotive company.

 

[Vulnox]

I don't get how so much of this thread was devoted to whether or not you know of the presenter. As was noted, unless you watch some content how are you ever introduced to new things? Such a wild way to live. I am not vouching for this person or anything, but just dismissing anything because it's new is how we are losing the Lightning to begin with. I wish people spent half as much time just asking questions or being curious as they do writing posts about how they can't be bothered.

Anyway...

The one item that stood out was his projection for what an EREV could mean. The 30-40 miles stuff is what we get with a PHEV. The EREV better have at least 125-150 miles of EV range. The point of an EREV is it's an electric vehicle first, where a PHEV is more that it's a more battery balanced hybrid. Yeah there is the way the wheels are driven as a large difference, but an EREV should have significantly more range than a PHEV, just not as much as a full BEV as you need space for a fuel tank and engine components. It shouldn't result in a 30-40 mile range though, that would mean about a 25-30kWh battery, 22-25 after buffers. Would be a huge waste of space on a long platform like an F-150. They should aim for a 60 kWh battery at least and a 12-15 gallon fuel tank.

 

[chl]

Here is a interesting video from Hank Green on the "The Bizarre Logic of the F-150 Lightning":



What do you all think about it?

This is the AI transcript below… (the YT video was not created by AI). People asked for a AI transcript, so I provided it.

If the transcript is accurate, then the video makes some good points.
Was the logic behind the F-150 Lightning "Bizarre?"
More like mundane group-think in my book.
But better than nothing until something better comes along.

 

[Lomilar]

Having.... engaged with the content....

First: I think that EV things must fail successfully before they will possibly be allowed to succeed successfully. The EREV platform will not result in people charging their plug-in hybrid vehicles in the garage, nor standards, nor infrastructure because there is no critical standard or need for anything other than bespoke chargers that plug into 120v outlets . The EV creates the need for the infrastructure that the EVs require... which must reach a critical mass before the infrastructure will be installed... that there needs to be EVs to use.

I think this is true of the infrastructure, the fast charging, the garage Level 2 charging, the outlets to plug in level 2 chargers, the slow chargers in front of hospitals, rest stops, and everywhere else, including culturally, capability wise, etc.

And I also think that EVs need just.... obscene numbers of batteries. The kinds of numbers of batteries you have to pump-fake every single rich person and company except for Toyota apparently into believing the world needs before the world will create that number of batteries. Then, once the world has that number of batteries being produced, EVs can be made at reasonable prices.

The failing successfully of EVs has given us an entire framework for understanding what EVs need that will make EVs successful in the future, whereas no amount of hybridity would have ever convinced me to put a 50A outlet in my garage. I think that EVs have failed successfully.

Second: and this is like... EREVs are going to need larger batteries than plug-in-hybrids to keep their generators from having to kick on all the time. They are going to need larger batteries than most hybrids to provide more power because you need a lot more power to get a heavy truck to move. You also need more power to keep it moving, but you're going to need power from both places, the battery and the engine, and if you want one to be small, the other is going to have to be normal sized. Normal here could mean 50-60kwh, which can produce 300kw or so of power, which isn't bad, but that's still not a 13kwh battery as was being eluded to. If you hit the throttle and the motor turns on every single time you have to shift from a stop, that's not an EREV, that's a hybrid with an electric transmission... and maybe that's what the EREV will be.

And that'll be a lot more expensive than a gas truck.

 

[ZeusDriver]

Second: and this is like... EREVs are going to need larger batteries than plug-in-hybrids to keep their generators from having to kick on all the time.

There are some unfortunate naming ambiguities here. An EREV is a particular type of Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV). There is no standard that says that an EREV should have 40 or 50 miles electric-only range (like a Prius Prime or a Volt -- both of which are PHEVs but not thought to be EREVs.) Nor is there any standard that says that they should have 145 mile range, like a RAM Rev, which is fairly clearly an EREV. My guess is that Ford will opt for something similar to RAM electric range, because all their specs seem to be based upon competing (from behind) with the RAM model. (The Ranger PHEV, available in non-US markets, is quite different, with surprisingly limited electric-only range. So far, there seems to be little consistency in Ford's corporate philosophy. Probably they are throwing stuff up against the wall to see what sticks. )

In the RAM, the engine can run in combination with well-charged batteries to increase performance, if the driver so desires. (There are high output levels for any battery that are detrimental to their health. If a 90 kWh battery can only operate at a safe maximum of 5C, then 450 kW is the greatest input into the electric motors, producing an output of say 400 kW (500 HP). If 600 hp is "required" by the driver -- to maintain a (ludicrously) high speed up the Rockies while towing a heavy trailer, then the engine's additional 130kW can be used for that purpose. (by providing additional available kWs.) I suspect that Ford will also implement such a feature.

Using the terms "serial plug in hybrid" and "parallel plugin hybrid" might be more descriptive, because in the former there is no mechanical connection between the engine and wheels, and in the later, there is. This means, that under some conditions, the series hybrid is less efficient than the parallel but simpler. ( I built the prototype of a series hybrid in my garage. I would not have attempted to design my own parallel hybrid transmission: they tend to be fabulously complicated).

Generators for either type do not have to kick on all the time. Consider the Volt. In its first 40 miles of driving after a charge, the engine would not run at all. For most commuters, you'd come home, and plug in overnight. Then repeat. The engine would not have to run at all -- for weeks for many users. (Other users, however, would not plug in at all, making one wonder why they would buy a Volt.) On long trips, the engine would run essentially all the time, at a fairly low rpm, and quite quietly. Occasionally, up an unusually long hill, the engine would run fast and become audible.

As training wheels on the way to a pure EV, a vehicle like the Volt is quite good, I think.: It is very nice not to visit gas stations other than during long road trips, and the cost of charging at home is a small fraction of the cost of filling up with gas. A small battery also means lower production cost.

Ford could take a similar path with the new EREV, but I doubt that they will. (But then there is the Ranger PHEV, arguing that they might. ) It seems that a lot of existing Lightning customers and Tesla customers really like the acceleration than can come from 500hp electric motors. With a small battery, that sort of HP output cannot happen*. (The Ranger's electric motor is only 100 HP, so its electric-only performance is for leisurely around-town drives. The Volt, on the other hand managed very good performance in EV mode -- although nothing like a Tesla Model 3.)

* Tesla decided to make electric cars "cool" by making them fast. I would have liked to see electric cars being cool because they are efficient, inexpensive to buy and inexpensive to fuel. That logic worked for the introduction of the air-cooled VWs -- small and efficient was seen as cool, with some Cadillac owners ditching their monsters for these funny little cars with the engine in the wrong end. Clearly Tesla's approach worked.

 

[TaxmanHog]

 

[brewski]

Does anyone notice a parallel between American's "fear" of charging a car and the folks in this thread and their dislike/distrust/dis-something of YouTube?
It humors me.

 

[Landscaper]

It’s amazing that they committed to producing this long. If you only produced 5 days a week it didn’t even average producing 140 units a day last year. And this year less than 120 a day.

 

[TaxmanHog]

It’s amazing that they committed to producing this long. If you only produced 5 days a week it didn’t even average producing 140 units a day last year. And this year less than 120 a day.

Sales numbers don''t directly tie to production numbers, but for the few samples I had for MY25, they tried to keep a pace of around 500 to 700 trucks rolling down the line, I'm not sure how few were rolling near the shift reduction and limited daily work load.

 

[TaxmanHog]

 

[TaxmanHog]

 

[TaxmanHog]

Sponsored