Ford Demos F-150 Electric Prototype, Has it Pull a 1 Million Pound Train

[rcmaehl]

Train cars have stupidly low rolling resistance. Even just a couple people can push a full length tram. I'm sure this e-Truck has more torque than normal vehicles at low RPM but it's not an insane feat like it's made out to be

 

 

Heck a single person can push a loaded boxcar similar to those shown

Finally, here's a single person pulling 500,000 pounds (misleading image, actual medium build Russian not shown)

I'm not saying I'm not ready for eTrucks, I really am, but this seems to be getting more hype than it should.

[Jito463]

This whole push for electric vehicles seems like change just for the sake of change.  I haven't seen any area where an EV is inherently better than a CEV (combustion engine vehicle).

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

This whole push for electric vehicles seems like change just for the sake of change.  I haven't seen any area where an EV is inherently better than a CEV (combustion engine vehicle).

Polluting Emissions are the inherent problem with ICE's (Internal Combustion Engines). Even if you take an EV powered by a Coal Powerplant, it's still less polluting over the life of the car, compared to a gasoline powered car.

 

Are there other fuel sources that are perhaps less polluting than gasoline? Yes, that's possible. But the end result will still be the same.

Not saying EV's are the only way forward, but they are certainly a right step.

 

Oh, also: Electric torque: It's just insane. Granted, you can get electric torque with hybrid systems, like how Diesel trains operate (Diesel generator, powering electric motors).

[givingtnt]

[Monkey Dust]

4 hours ago, Thaldor said:

But can it stand 2 episodes of the old Top Gear and live on?

Where we get to biggest downside of electric or hybrid cars: It breaks while in duty, you're in deep trouble because you are not going to fix it yourself with simple tools, let alone make some MacGyver-fixes to get it at least somehow moving and at least to a place where it's easier to get towed. Being able to pull million tons doesn't do much if it doesn't even start.

You're not going to fix a modern ICE vehicle with simple tools either, they are just too complicated. Access is poor and the various ECUs will freak out if something isn't quite right. If you want to fix a modern car away from civilisation you better have a pretty broad selection of tools, parts and a good code reader.

 

I guess this isn't the market the electric truck is aimed at anyway. People who need to move large and/or heavy stuff around cities, possibly with incoming super strict emissions regulations, those are the people most likely in the market for this.

[Commodus]

59 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

This whole push for electric vehicles seems like change just for the sake of change.  I haven't seen any area where an EV is inherently better than a CEV (combustion engine vehicle).

Really?  There are numerous areas.

 

First, of course, zero emissions -- and no, don't try the "but the total environmental impact isn't any better" claim, because that's already been debunked.  Even if you don't accept the realities of climate science, there's a near-term benefit from reduced air pollution.

 

Then there's instant torque.  Unlike a gas-based car, which has a narrow torque band, you always get maximum pull... and a lot of it, too. This is part of why electric trucks are so exciting -- you won't need some Earth-killing V8 beast to haul a trailer or carry a heavy load.

 

You can top up not just for much less, but in more places.  You can't refill a gas car at home like you can an EV.  And you don't need dedicated stations -- many EV charging stations are in store parking lots, hotels, even trailer parks.  While the charging station networks are still thin today, there will come a point where people will laugh at how inconvenient it was to fill a gas car.

 

They're quieter.  Yeah, you won't have the visceral thrill of a burbling engine, but you might not have to talk loudly to hold a conversation in the car or on the sidewalk.  I like the thought of cities where the loudest sounds from the streets are a faint electric whine and EVs' pedestrian safety sounds.

 

Maintenance is also better.  Yeah, the battery replacement is a looming cost if you keep the car for long enough, but EVs are generally more reliable.  There's none of the combustion-related wonkiness like spark plugs, alternators, carburetors and other things that tend to go awry in gas cars.  You're more likely to need repairs for the cabin trim than the motor.

 

Besides... it's 2019.  The notion that we should keep running our cars on creaky, finicky, dirty technology with roots in the 19th century makes about as much sense in this era as using gas-powered shavers and waffle irons.  It's about time we modernize the powerplants in cars.

[Jito463]

53 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Even if you take an EV powered by a Coal Powerplant, it's still less polluting over the life of the car, compared to a gasoline powered car.

No, it's just more concentrated to a single area instead of spread out.  I'd argue that's actually worse.  Also, those batteries cannot be disposed of, so they're going to end up creating even more waste.  Meanwhile, recycling of the batteries isn't guaranteed, as it's very cost prohibitive.  Not to mention how much extra work is involved in extracting the necessary components (primarily lithium, if I recall correctly) just to create the battery in the first place.

 

Hiding the cost of the something doesn't diminish it.

53 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

ICE's (Internal Combustion Engines)

Thanks, had a brain fart moment and couldn't remember the proper term.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Jito463

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

The "must return" part isn't doable for attaining the ease of use of liquid fuels. Because not everyone will want to drive out of the way to go back and get their own battery. Especially people who work construction type jobs where they might be in one area one day, another area the next, etc.

 

I prefer the method of "you pay for the battery when you buy the car, pay a small fee to switch for a freshly charged one at any station, that one will go one to be charged and end up in someone elses car, most likely".

 

The fee would need to pay for occasional replacement batteries added into circulation, as well as the cost of charging batteries. Could maybe do a system that tracks individual users and charge more for people who dog the hell out of the batteries and reduce their lifespan more quickly? Makes sense considering they would cause a net increase in the cost of maintaining the system.

thats why i said at the start, its not the best solution but it might be a simpler one to try the system on

[Jito463]

5 minutes ago, Commodus said:

First, of course, zero emissions -- and no, don't try the "but the total environmental impact isn't any better" claim, because that's already been debunked.

Debunked?

6 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Even if you don't accept the realities of climate science, there's a near-term benefit from reduced air pollution.

See my response to Dalek.  It's not reduced, it's just concentrated to a smaller area.

7 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Then there's instant torque.  Unlike a gas-based car, which has a narrow torque band, you always get maximum pull... and a lot of it, too.

Okay, I might grant you that.  Though I'd argue that the vast majority of people who want an EV have absolutely no need for it.

8 minutes ago, Commodus said:

You can top up not just for much less, but in more places.

Except when there's no charging stations around for you to charge from.  You even acknowledge that yourself:

10 minutes ago, Commodus said:

While the charging station networks are still thin today

If you're driving in town and you know where the charging stations are, then you'll be fine.  I wouldn't want to take one on a long trip, though.

9 minutes ago, Commodus said:

You can't refill a gas car at home like you can an EV.

Maybe not as conveniently, but you certainly could do it.

12 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Maintenance is also better.  Yeah, the battery replacement is a looming cost if you keep the car for long enough, but EVs are generally more reliable.

EV's haven't been around long enough to make those kinds of claims.

13 minutes ago, Commodus said:

There's none of the combustion-related wonkiness like spark plugs, alternators, carburetors and other things that tend to go awry in gas cars.

No, we just have software glitches and faulty batteries and poor wiring that cause things to go awry in EV's.  Different doesn't mean better.

14 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Besides... it's 2019.

That's not an argument.

14 minutes ago, Commodus said:

The notion that we should keep running our cars on creaky, finicky, dirty technology with roots in the 19th century makes about as much sense in this era as using gas-powered shavers and waffle irons.

What's wrong with waffle irons?  Just because something is old doesn't mean it's bad.  Also, modern combustion engines are far better and more efficient those from the 19th century, so that's a false equivalence.

15 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's about time we modernize the powerplants in cars.

And that's fine if it makes sense, so far I haven't seen anything to convince me that we need to switch everyone to EV's. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be made, but we have places like the UK that want to ban the manufacturing of any new ICE vehicles when EV's are still a brand new technology.  I'd argue that we need a much longer term study of them before we consider throwing out what we already have.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

No, we just have software glitches and faulty batteries and poor wiring that cause things to go awry in EV's.  Different doesn't mean better.

It also ignores thay carborators have been replaced.

Spark plugs are only used for starting a diesel, meaning they're a low wear part.

Alternators are the functional inverse of motors, and are necessary parts of any type of hybrid.

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Just because something is old doesn't mean it's bad.  Also, modern combustion engines are far better and more efficient those from the 19th century, so that's a false equivalence.

What's funny is that the electric motor itself is also very old, but it hasn't seen nearly as much improvement.

[dalekphalm]

32 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

No, it's just more concentrated to a single area instead of spread out.  I'd argue that's actually worse.

But... that's wrong. A coal fired power plant (let alone a more efficient fuel source, like Oil or Natural Gas) is straight up more efficient to operate for the same portion of fuel, compared to a gasoline powered vehicle.

 

Yes, the pollution is concentrated around the power plant - that is correct. But it's less pollution than the equivalent amount of cars would have produced. And, frankly, you can easily (aside from the cost of construction) replace coal fired power plants with even less polluting sources.

Quote

Also, those batteries cannot be disposed of, so they're going to end up creating even more waste.  Meanwhile, recycling of the batteries isn't guaranteed, as it's very cost prohibitive.  Not to mention how much extra work is involved in extracting the necessary components (primarily lithium, if I recall correctly) just to create the battery in the first place.

There's actually very little lithium inside a battery. And while recycling the materials isn't very practical yet, it's hypothetically not a problem. So it'll get better over time.

Quote

Hiding the cost of the something doesn't diminish it.

Even if you account for the pollution and environmental problems of lithium mining, constructing the battery, etc - an EV is still far more environmentally friendly than an equivalent ICE. Even when using Coal Power - which is basically the worst power you can get.

 

And many countries have little or no coal power plants left. The province I live in got rid of them years ago. Most of my electricity is from Hydro-electric and Nuclear, with Natural Gas taking up the slack when needed.

Quote

Thanks, had a brain fart moment and couldn't remember the proper term.

No worries.

14 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Debunked?

See my response to Dalek.  It's not reduced, it's just concentrated to a smaller area.

As stated above, it is reduced. It's also concentrated, yes, but still, definitely reduced.

Quote

Okay, I might grant you that.  Though I'd argue that the vast majority of people who want an EV have absolutely no need for it.

Most people who want a car have no need for it. What kind of argument is that? We need EV's because we need to get rid of the fact that there are approximately 1 billion ICE's all generating pollution in the world right now. If we can reduce that even marginally, it has an incredibly massive impact on air quality and overall pollution.

Quote

Except when there's no charging stations around for you to charge from.  You even acknowledge that yourself:

True - but the vast majority of EV owners will charge at home. Especially if they don't drive that much, since they could conceivably use the included 120V (220V-240V if you live in Europe) slow wall charger. Sure you're not charging the car from empty to full using that piece of crap, but if you just drive a few dozen km to work and back, it would suffice. Beyond that, most owners install Level 2 chargers at home (usually 240V) that can fully charge an EV overnight.

Quote

If you're driving in town and you know where the charging stations are, then you'll be fine.  I wouldn't want to take one on a long trip, though.

If you're driving in town, you don't even need to care where the chargers are. Realistically, you'll only need them for when you're doing out of town long distance trips.

Quote

Maybe not as conveniently, but you certainly could do it.

Not in the same way. You could stockpile fuel at home with gas cans - sure. But unless your home is hooked up to a fuel pipe, it's not the same. You'd still need to restock your fuel supply eventually.

Quote

EV's haven't been around long enough to make those kinds of claims.

There have been EV's around for over 10 years now, so we can start to see the long term reliability of them. And frankly the basic fact is that EV's have less moving parts, which are more prone to failure. Especially since a lot of EV's are based around existing models, and share a majority of the same parts as those other models, it stands to reason that reliability will be at least equal to a similar ICE. Will it be better? Probably, but let's assume "unconfirmed".

Quote

No, we just have software glitches and faulty batteries and poor wiring that cause things to go awry in EV's.  Different doesn't mean better.

That's not an argument.

What's wrong with waffle irons?  Just because something is old doesn't mean it's bad.  Also, modern combustion engines are far better and more efficient those from the 19th century, so that's a false equivalence.

He's not talking about waffle irons, he's talking about gas powered waffle irons.

Quote

And that's fine if it makes sense, so far I haven't seen anything to convince me that we need to switch everyone to EV's. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be made, but we have places like the UK that want to ban the manufacturing of any new ICE vehicles when EV's are still a brand new technology.  I'd argue that we need a much longer term study of them before we consider throwing out what we already have.

Not everyone will need or have to switch to EV's. It's not an all or nothing game. If we can switch most suburban ICE owners (who typically drive short commutes to work, and then just errands around town) to an EV, with a home charger? That's millions of ICE's off the road, reducing emissions, and the owners won't find any difference.

 

And to cut off this argument before I see it: If you visit your uncle twice a year 2000 km away? Rent an ICE car for those trips.

 

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It also ignores thay carborators have been replaced.

Spark plugs are only used for starting a diesel, meaning they're a low wear part.

Diesel cars don't have Spark Plugs. They ignite the engine based on pressurizing the fuel to combustion. I wouldn't be surprised if some form of diesel engine operated with a spark plug, but not a normal automotive one.

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Alternators are the functional inverse of motors, and are necessary parts of any type of hybrid.

This is correct - Alternators would charge up the battery from the ICE in a hybrid system.

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

What's funny is that the electric motor itself is also very old, but it hasn't seen nearly as much improvement.

Indeed the electric motor is what? 200 years old now?

 

And indeed we should improve the design with new research and technology. That's not a knock against EV's though, but rather just showing further potential for improvement.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Just put a Diesel generator on the flat bed and you're good 

Are there cars with one of these built-in?

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, floofer said:

Are there cars with one of these built-in?

Not typically, but Top Gear did make one. They installed a generator in the back of a sub-compact car and installed an electric drivetrain which was powered by the generator.

 

I'm not aware of any production car powered in this manner.

 

Of course, you might be making a cheeky response saying "well we already have diesel powered cars", which is true, but very different. Since they aren't powered by generators.

[Guest]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Not typically, but Top Gear did make one. They installed a generator in the back of a sub-compact car and installed an electric drivetrain which was powered by the generator.

 

I'm not aware of any production car powered in this manner.

 

Of course, you might be making a cheeky response saying "well we already have diesel powered cars", which is true, but very different. Since they aren't powered by generators.

I could very well have a cheeky response like that. Because my other post was. (I should have wrote /s oopsie). 

 

You are right though. It was the episode where they had to make an electric car, but they used cheap batteries so no range, I think they just used normal car batteries. 

[cj09beira]

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

 

Diesel cars don't have Spark Plugs. They ignite the engine based on pressurizing the fuel to combustion. I wouldn't be surprised if some form of diesel engine operated with a spark plug, but not a normal automotive one.

This is correct - Alternators would charge up the battery from the ICE in a hybrid system.

Indeed the electric motor is what? 200 years old now?

 

And indeed we should improve the design with new research and technology. That's not a knock against EV's though, but rather just showing further potential for improvement.

diesel cars do have a heating element that servers the purpose he was talking about, as when the engine is cool diesel has trouble starting up.

 

[3 Lions]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

diesel cars do have a heating element that servers the purpose he was talking about

Yep called glow plugs

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, floofer said:

I could very well have a cheeky response like that. Because my other post was. (I should have wrote /s oopsie). 

 

You are right though. It was the episode where they had to make an electric car, but they used cheap batteries so no range, I think they just used normal car batteries. 

It was a hilarious episode. Their concept wasn't even bad, in theory - just... you know. Jeremy engineering anything, is never a good sign.

Just now, cj09beira said:

diesel cars do have a heating element that servers the purpose he was talking about, as when the engine is cool diesel has trouble starting up.

True but they serve a slightly different purpose. Diesel's start just fine without any heating element or sparks in normal weather. The heating element is just to make sure the engine isn't too cold. You could get the same result using a block heater - though having an integrated element is totally a better solution.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

It was a hilarious episode. Their concept wasn't even bad, in theory - just... you know. Jeremy engineering anything, is never a good sign.

True but they serve a slightly different purpose. Diesel's start just fine without any heating element or sparks in normal weather. The heating element is just to make sure the engine isn't too cold. You could get the same result using a block heater - though having an integrated element is totally a better solution.

i meant cold not cool 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

i meant cold not cool 

No worries - I get what you were saying.

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, justpoet said:

Wouldn't need an extra heavy use fee.  Just pay per swap based on the currently fully charged capacity of the pack you're getting back vs the one you're dropping off.  Factor in any costs you want, but then it is just the cost of a fast fill up.  Sometimes your pack will be better (when new) and result in a credit, other times the pack you get will be better than what you had, resulting in a small fee on top of the charge cost.

The problem I foresee is dickheads drag racing and burning through battery packs health faster than others, meaning the total pool of packs has to be replenished more often.

 

From what I understand, the harder you run these things the more quickly the battery packs wear out.

[flibberdipper]

3 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Didn't Toyota pull a similar stunt with the Tundra and one of the space rockets in 2012?

Truck manufacturers have been pulling redonk stunts like this forever lol

 

[bcredeur97]

this was more impressive

[ARikozuM]

I'd buy it. I only really have to tow a horse/cow trailer once a day, if not every other day, so this seems like a good middle ground between me having to spend $50 a week on gas to get to school and just parking in the school's electric spots for free. 

[Bcat00]

Its definitely nice and all but as someone who owns a F150, ill damned to take it in electric form. 

People buy these trucks for heavy duty use or for work, they are not going to take the risk of being stranded because they can't find a damn charger where as gas is at every every block of the city or every few miles in the countryside where alot of people DO buy these models.

 

Big ass publicity stunt, though I do like the fact they're at least trying to push the boundaries. But no, its not going to sell to the main target audience for these F150 trucks.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Diesel cars don't have Spark Plugs. They ignite the engine based on pressurizing the fuel to combustion. I wouldn't be surprised if some form of diesel engine operated with a spark plug, but not a normal automotive one.

My Ram 2500 has spark plugs. It’s a Cummins 6.7 turbo i6. I’ve only put diesel fuel in it.

 

And that’s actually one of two common systems to start an engine. The other is glow plugs.