Is the F150 Lightning a local commuter (based on real world data)?

[Jseis]

The Lightning is perfect for a “Blue Highways” tour. Off the manic freeway beaten path. Charging at RV parks, occasional sorties to an urban/freeway DCFC. Forget the freeway at 70 mph+.

In such a mode (like my daily 90 miles on US101 in Wa, my average is 2.6 KWh/mile) I’d be good for 290-300 miles daily range. That’d be leisurely 6+ hours of driving, scenic driving instead of freeway BS. Puddle jump down the Oreo coast or roll the Olympic loop. Ferry hop Puget Sound, over North Cascades to Twisp-Winthrop. I had to laugh, a local car show generated slow traffic on 101. The Lightning can chill efficiently.

Now that I think about it, my ’62 Micro Bus with a 1500 cc transplant & travel loaded would struggle to get 26 mpg and wasn’t really speedy.. like 55 mph was ripping. No way I could keep with freight trucks in the 70‘s & 80’s.

Sponsored

 

[RickKeen]

Most of the concerns about charger availability and reliability go away once the bulk of the Tesla fast-charging network becomes open to non-Tesla EVs.

We all need to lean on Tesla via the FTC, DOJ, the media, and every politician you can contact to end the Tesla monopoly on the Tesla charging network (see the Clayton anti-trust act)

 

[lightspeed]

Most of the concerns about charger availability and reliability go away once the bulk of the Tesla fast-charging network becomes open to non-Tesla EVs.

We all need to lean on Tesla via the FTC, DOJ, the media, and every politician you can contact to end the Tesla monopoly on the Tesla charging network (see the Clayton anti-trust act)

Firstly, you're full of it. Tesla has no moral or legal obligation to share their network just because you want it.

Secondly, you must live under a rock or something since FORD (and a bunch of other companies) and Tesla have already agreed to give Ford full access to V3+ superchargers starting early next year. Plus Ford will be switching all of their vehicles to the Tesla plug type in the near future.

 

[RickKeen]

Firstly, you're full of it. Tesla has no moral or legal obligation to share their network just because you want it.

Secondly, you must live under a rock or something since FORD (and a bunch of other companies) and Tesla have already agreed to give Ford full access to V3+ superchargers starting early next year. Plus Ford will be switching all of their vehicles to the Tesla plug type in the near future.

There is a legal obligation - read up on the Clayton Anti-Trust act and the illegality of tying products together to leverage a monopoly in one product/market into an unfair advantage in another product/market.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tying_arrangement

The "unfair competition" of large trusts and big corporations is what also makes this somewhat of a moral argument.

I am aware of the announcements. But meanwhile the unfair practice continues with only vague promises of the network being opened up "sometime next year". Such announcements often serve to get the regulators off of a company's back. But until they actually do what they promise, its unfair competition.

 

[lightspeed]

There is a legal obligation - read up on the Clayton Anti-Trust act and the illegality of tying products together to leverage a monopoly in one product/market into an unfair advantage in another product/market.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tying_arrangement

The "unfair competition" of large trusts and big corporations is what also makes this somewhat of a moral argument.

I am aware of the announcements. But meanwhile the unfair practice continues with only vague promises of the network being opened up "sometime next year". Such announcements often serve to get the regulators off of a company's back. But until they actually do what they promise, its unfair competition.

There is nothing vague about their promises. Ford said "starting Spring 2024."

You can quit with the fake lawyer speak. The situation with Tesla doesn't even match the Clayton act that you quoted where is says specifically:

"A tying arrangement is an agreement in which the seller conditions the sale of one product (the "tying" product) on the buyer's agreement to purchase a separate product (the "tied" product) from the seller. Alternatively, it is also considered a tying arrangement when the seller conditions the sale of the tying product on the buyer's agreement not to purchase the tied product from any other seller. "

You are not obligated, nor did you sign an agreement to buy electrons from Tesla. You are not obligated, nor did you sign an agreement NOT buy electrons from other charger networks.

Monopolies exist or don't exist in the context of competitors of which their are many for chargers. The fact that the competitors suck doesn't make Tesla a monopoly.

 

[RickKeen]

"A tying arrangement is an agreement in which the seller conditions the sale of one product (the "tying" product) on the buyer's agreement to purchase a separate product (the "tied" product) from the seller. Alternatively, it is also considered a tying arrangement when the seller conditions the sale of the tying product on the buyer's agreement not to purchase the tied product from any other seller. "

You are not obligated, nor did you sign an agreement to buy electrons from Tesla. You are not obligated, nor did you sign an agreement NOT buy electrons from other charger networks.

The fact that the competitors suck doesn't make Tesla a monopoly.

If you want to buy EV charging from Tesla chargers, you have to buy a Tesla vehicle. The two products are tied together.

How many people are going to buy the CybertTruck instead of the Ford in part because they need access to the superior charging network? That is where the unfair competition come in.

 

[lightspeed]

If you want to buy EV charging from Tesla chargers, you have to buy a Tesla vehicle. The two products are tied together.

How many people are going to buy the CybertTruck instead of the Ford in part because they need access to the superior charging network? That is where the unfair competition come in.

You did not purchase an EV charging product. "You" purchased a Tesla and in that transaction it was not conditional on using superchargers exclusively.

There's no point in arguing monopoly anymore though. There are many aspects to it and none of them are "because I want it." In any case, we'll all have access to superchargers soon which is great.

 

[FirstF150InCasco]

Firstly, you're full of it. Tesla has no moral or legal obligation to share their network just because you want it.

Secondly, you must live under a rock or something since FORD (and a bunch of other companies) and Tesla have already agreed to give Ford full access to V3+ superchargers starting early next year. Plus Ford will be switching all of their vehicles to the Tesla plug type in the near future.

Spot on!

 

[RickKeen]

You did not purchase an EV charging product. "You" purchased a Tesla and in that transaction it was not conditional on using superchargers exclusively.

There's no point in arguing monopoly anymore though. There are many aspects to it and none of them are "because I want it." In any case, we'll all have access to superchargers soon which is great.

Flip it around the other way. Say the primary concern is to frequently drive long distances across the country (in an EV). Turns out Tesla fast charging network is the best choice for that (by far - they dominate that product/market).

But in order to use the Tesla fast chargers, you MUST buy a Tesla EV. The products ARE tied together. And the Tesla Fast Charging network does have market dominance. They are using that market dominance and tying in selling their EVs where they would otherwise have more competition.

 

[lightspeed]

Flip it around the other way. Say the primary concern is to frequently drive long distances across the country (in an EV). Turns out Tesla fast charging network is the best choice for that (by far - they dominate that product/market).

But in order to use the Tesla fast chargers, you MUST buy a Tesla EV. The products ARE tied together. And the Tesla Fast Charging network does have market dominance. They are using that market dominance and tying in selling their EVs where they would otherwise have more competition.

That's like saying Canon makes the best laser printer powder but I want to use it in a HP printer, therefore Canon has a monopoly on their laser printer refills. Or what is HP wanted to develop a printer but not the printer cartridges, can they claim that they have to right to use Canon cartridges? No, probably not. Integrated systems are legitimate and not considered 'tying.' There's like a million examples of them.

Part of monopoly regulation is proving anti-competitive behavior not just having a better product. Tesla has not in any way used their lead to stop other companies from making chargers/cars. Being a market leader is not anti-competitive by itself. Having the best ecosystem of products is also not anti-competitive.

You can have the last word, 'cause I'm done with this

Sponsored