Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Power Technology

Ford Says It Has Nothing To Prove To Tesla In F-150 Vs Cybertruck Tow Battle (techcrunch.com) 273

Posted by BeauHD from the scaredy-cat dept.
Sadly, it's looking like the Ford F-150 versus Tesla Cybertruck tow battle probably won't happen. TechCrunch reports: Tesla CEO Elon Musk poked the figurative Dearborn, Michigan bear in the middle of the company's Cybertruck unveiling when he played a video of the futuristic electric truck pulling an F-150 in what was pitched as a head-to-head contest. Many were quick to question whether it was a fair fight, including astrophysicist and author Neil deGrasse Tyson. But what really got Musk's attention was a tweet from Sundeep Madra, VP of Ford X, the automaker's venture incubator.

Madra tweeted to Musk challenging the CEO to send Ford a Cybertruck to do an "apples to apples" test. Musk, who is well versed in the Twitter troll, responded with a "bring it on." It seems Madra's tweet wasn't meant to be a serious challenge, but a "tongue in cheek" troll, according to Ford. "Sunny's tweet was tongue in cheek to point out the absurdity of Tesla's video, nothing more," a Ford spokesperson said in an email to TechCrunch. "With America's best-selling truck for 42 years, we've always focused on serving our truck customers regardless of what others say or do. We look forward to our all-new F-150 hybrid coming next year and all-electric F-150 in a few years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ford Says It Has Nothing To Prove To Tesla In F-150 Vs Cybertruck Tow Battle More

Ford Says It Has Nothing To Prove To Tesla In F-150 Vs Cybertruck Tow Battle

Comments Filter:

  • "Which is why we're not going to prove anything!" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @10:10PM (#59460702)
    Because, uh. We have nothing to prove. Yes. That's it. In conclusion please ignore the competitor which shall no longer be acknowledged as existing. As for myself I must resign for personal reasons and go live as a hermit in Tibet.

    • If you want to have a towing competition, you don't play stupid games, which at best result in stupid prizes. You tow the way people actually tow. You tow a fifth wheel (automatic victory Ford), or a car, or a boat. Or better yet, all three, on different days. And you tow them for practical distances, meaning representative ones. Comparing the vehicles is totally valid, but you do it in ways that actually make sense.

      While you're at it, do some useful hauling tests like a cord of firewood. Takes two trips in a normal standard bed pickup. Will take three in the DeLorean Ridgeline. Short bed pickups are lame. Not having a standard bed version is a bad joke. This is where the unibody design fails. With a full frame pickup, making the bed longer is trivial. If you use a unit body, you have to design a new body.

      I'm not actually against unibody trucks, I think they're a great alternative for people who want a car to be a truck. But they're lame for work trucks, and that goofy design means no towing fifth wheels or goosenecks. Each vehicle has its own strengths and weaknesses.

      • Re:"Which is why we're not going to prove anything (Score:5, Interesting)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @12:00AM (#59461028) Journal

        Short bed pickups are lame.

        This is, at a minimum, overstated, if not downright ridiculous. Yes, having an 8-foot bed has significant advantages (My F-350 has a long bed). But it also comes with serious disadvantages, especially when you pair it with a quad cab. Namely, you get a ridiculously long vehicle. Not only is it a pain to park, but it's guaranteed to have an enormous turning radius which makes it a poor off-road vehicle. A pickup is never going to be a Jeep, but shorter pickups can be decent off-road vehicles. There's a very real tradeoff to make in bed length.

        Not having a standard bed version is a bad joke.

        Technically, the 6.5' bed in the cybertruck is a "standard" bed. 8' beds are called "long", and 5' 8" beds are "short". All three have their place. Even in work trucks.

        But they're lame for work trucks

        Actually, I think the cybertruck is going to be an incredible hit for work trucks. Take a look around any construction site and you'll see that the majority of the pickups have either standard beds or long flat beds. And the cybertruck's ability to power a work site, with 120V, 220V and air compressor outlets in the back, is going to be incredibly useful. You can run a welder off of the truck battery, and you can run it all day long. Typically, construction has to be delayed until power is brought into a site, but with Tesla trucks there will be no need to wait.

        For work trucks, I think the fact that it will be impossible to make a flatbed version is a bigger problem than the 6.5' bed.

        But they're lame for work trucks, and that goofy design means no towing fifth wheels or goosenecks.

        This part does concern me a little. I have a gooseneck flatbed trailer and a fifth wheel camp trailer. The gooseneck will be just fine, I think, because most goosenecks have 2.5'-3' of rise. The underside of my trailer's toungue sits a full 34" above my truck bed, which is high enough that I think you could safely turn the cybertruck a little more than 90 degrees. Fifth wheels are more problematic.

        However, if you can trade off some ground clearance, the cybertruck may offer a solution: Position the fifth-wheel hitch or gooseneck ball further above the bed. In a truck with fixed height, this might lift the trailer tongue too high, but the cybertruck has a pneumatic suspension and can be lowered. Whether this makes the undercarriage too low for rough roads would depend on how much you have to lower it and how rough the road is.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Compuser ( 14899 )

        I would think these kinds of towing competitions would have to wait until people come out with custom but professional hitch mods for the Tesla truck. I see no reason any trailer attachment style would not work with Tesla with maybe a bit of custom body work. Likewise, complaints about lack of 8' bed are nuts. Lower the tailgate, add a bed extender and you are good to go, almost for sure.
        I can see the argument that Tesla truck is just ugly. But the rest seems just made up to hate on Tesla.

        • Likewise, complaints about lack of 8' bed are nuts. Lower the tailgate, add a bed extender and you are good to go,

          This.

          It already has a loading ramp built in. By the time the first one rolls off the line there'll probably be a push-button electronic bed extender option.

          • "there'll probably be a push-button electronic bed extender option"
             
            Sure, and it will be part of the "convenience package" that adds $5k to the price...

      • Short bed pickups are lame.

        Absolute nonsense. Here is an example of a short bed pickup that's the polar opposite of lame:

        https://images.app.goo.gl/WhUN... [app.goo.gl]

        I normally respect your opinions, drinky, but short bed pickups are where it's at.

      • It's an attention-grabbing stunt. Not as good as as when Toyota had their truck tow the space shuttle (which weighs 165,000 pounds).

        Elon Musk is really, really good at one thing - getting press. He's done that here.

        As you said, neither this highly-rigged Tesla stunt nor the Toyota space shuttle stunt have anything to do with ordinary day use of the vehicle. If you wanted to compare towing capacity, the trucks have a clearly labeled towing capacity rating (and it's not 165,000 pounds).

        • Better yet, Ford just had their own pointless electric truck stunt when they pulled a train: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          Which looks cool until you realize a single strong dude can pull a train too. All of this is nonsense designed to impress the truck bros who imagine they're badass roughnecks working the rigs in middle of North Dakota while they sit in traffic on the way to their office job in the suburbs.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Smidge204 ( 605297 )

            > Which looks cool until you realize a single strong dude can pull a train too.

            Look I'm not judging but I just want to remind you that your browser has a private/incognito mode where it doesn't save your browsing history...
            =Smidge=

            • Look I'm not judging but I just want to remind you that your browser has a private/incognito mode where it doesn't save your browsing history...

              Ugh, sorry, I had the wrong tab open!

          • Oooorrrrr... it could just appeal to the immature part of us that just likes to see silly things. That's why Top Gear and The Grand Tour are so popular. Not many will buy a vehicle based on it's segment in either those two programs but they are massively popular.

            Disclaimer: I drive a truck. Sometimes I'll haul stuff. Sometimes I'm driving through muddy, unpaved roads and/or 2 feet of snow. But most of the time, I'm driving on civilized roads. I don't day dream about being a oil rig worker or a cons

            • Right, I love Top Gear too, but Ford and Tesla are trying to sell you trucks based on stupid and misleading demos, not make you laugh at how a Fiesta can be used as a beach assault vehicle.

              I'm sure Elon is happy you liked the video.But if you were hoping to see if the Cybertruck will be better for towing than your current truck, it's worse than useless. I'm sure you realize that, being a smart person posting on slashdot, but the general population would be like whoa truck strong!

      • You're overlooking the fact that, while silly, the sight of two trucks engaging in a tug of war competition is appealing to the 7 year old in most of us.

        No-one is gonna buy a truck based on it's ability to drag another truck around.

      • "You tow the way people actually tow."

        You mean like by hooking a cable up to another vehicle stuck in the mud? It seems you were not fully aware of all the ways in which people actually tow.

        • You tow the way people actually tow.

          You mean like by hooking a cable up to another vehicle stuck in the mud? It seems you were not fully aware of all the ways in which people actually tow.

          Yes, people do that. However, you deliberately left out the part where the towed vehicle is either put in neutral, or its wheels are driven in the same direction as the towing vehicle, not the opposite direction.

          • I guess you also don't understand how being stuck in the mud works.

            • I guess you also don't understand how being stuck in the mud works.

              What gives you that impression? Provide illustrative quotations. Otherwise you're just trolling.

      • Short bed pickups are lame.

        Depends on the use case. My truck has a really short bed (5' 1"). I've also got a toolbox mounted back there that takes up another 1.5' or so (though for short items they can slip underneath it). It still does damned near everything I need. I'm a computer programmer, not a construction worker. I do have times when I need to haul some things, but rarely are they that long. EG, a dishwasher, or a washing machine, or bags of potting soil for the garden, or a gun safe, or a deer (from hunting). In my ent

      • But they're lame for work trucks, and that goofy design means no towing fifth wheels or goosenecks.

        It's almost as if you think there won't be a market for matching cyber fifth wheels. Fifth wheels that can connect into the electricity supply from the cybertruck and be much more awesome than yours.

        • Fifth wheels that can connect into the electricity supply from the cybertruck

          I don't think I've ever seen a fifth wheel for a pickup truck that requires power. One for a tow truck, yes, but not for a pickup. And unless they change the body style, I don't see very many aftermarket fifth wheels happening either. They'll either be too tall to accommodate most trailers, or will push the weight so far back behind the rear wheels that the front wheels won't be able to maintain decent traction.

    • In no universe is the Cybertruck a competitor to the F-150, the bets-selling vehicle (not just truck) in the US. There is essentially zero overlap in target demographic, and the unfortunate styling of the Tesla makes it an extremely niche product. It could have been huge with appropriate styling. My conspiracy theory about it is that Elon felt empowered to go wacky with it because he knew it would help keep demand low (and thus increase Tesla's chances of meeting said demand).

      • >There is essentially zero overlap in target demographic
        I'm not so sure. How many people buy an F-150 for what it *could* do, and then barely scratch the paint? The cybertruck could be a very attractive option for such people.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by alantus ( 882150 )

          > The cybertruck could be a very attractive option for such people.

          If with "such people" you mean people with no sense of style, you are absolutely right.

          The Tesla looks like that weird, butt-ugly car that Homer Simpson designed in that episode when he finds his half-brother.

        • I'm in the market for a new truck and I had my eye on the F150. But I'll buy the Cybertruck once it's out. Real world example of a buyer who was going to buy an F150 until the Cybertruck was announced. Now I just need to wait 2-3 years...

        • You mean people that buy a truck for looks are going to buy a vehicle that is being widely touted as the ugliest thing since sliced bread grew mold?

          The only thing "attractive" about the Tesla is its electric capability and autodrive features.

    • Why even dignify the rigged demo with an answer? If you can't see a half-dozen ways it was cooked from the beginning - you're blind, ignorant, or both.
      • You're confusing the demo with something like a Guiness record which requires some objective validation. I would go so far as to say NO-ONE took it as a scientifically valid, independent test. It was a bit of fun and I hope they do get a similarly weighed down F150 and re-do it

        Same as when the electric F150 pulled a train. I mean, c'mon, that falls into the same category. No-one really believed that truck can pull a train all day, every day right??

        • Quite a few tesla fanbois took it as a real world test and are touting it as proof the tesla truck is better than an ICE truck. They get really pissy when you point out the tesla truck has close to 2000lbs on the 150, the 150 is only RWD in the video, and is a 2.7l turbo charged engine. Like comoaring apples to watermellons.

        • The whole premise of this /. post and TFA was that "look Ford can't answer because they got SMOKED!" In fact, it was rigged from the beginning, and it shows that Tesla just doesn't get it. It's a lie of a test, but people are taking it at face value... As far as pulling a train, it probably could pull that train for several hours (well, until it ran out of fuel). Once you get rolling, it's not a lot of energy required to keep it rolling.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      it would just prove which truck is heavier and has more grip anyways wouldn't it?

      they could just have asked elon if his engineers thought at all about ncap scores for hitting pedestrians as that is the actual real reason why all the trucks and sedans ALL LOOK THE FRIGGING SAME AND ITS BORING AS HELL because they're all tuned for the hitting into pedestrians test(without extra front bars and such).

      furthermore the cybertruck isn't on the market yet and will not be in 2 plus years and the actual final pricepoi

    • But the F150 and the Tesla truck are not in the same class. It's really an unfair comparison, so why should Ford try to make the F150 better when they have models all the way up to an F450?

  • Translation: He ran the numbers (Score:3, Informative)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @10:12PM (#59460712)

    With Tesla being a giant steel box It probably ways way more than the F-150 at this point, and then on top of that the Tesla obvious can bring way more torque to bear than any ICE truck can muster. The president of Ford realized this post-tweet.

    Even if the F-150 had slightly better tires it would probably still lose.

    • No, ford trucks can do what electric trucks can't, work for a long time between refueling. Someday that won't be true...

      • About the same range (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @11:17PM (#59460916)

        The largest F-150 tank (ranch model, not the pro truck super duty model) is 29 gallons [ford.com] (the super duty is 50!).

        Real world mileage is 19 MPG [caranddriver.com].

        So that is just slightly better than the Tesla top 500 mile range option...

        Of course both the F-150 and the Tesla would probably get lower milage if you are in rough country with them. However I think an electric car might lose less range there as the ICE engine has to maintain at least idle speed and has a floor on how little gas it can burn, while an electric car can deliver exactly as much power as is needed at all times.

        In any case 500 miles is some serious range for any vehicle.

        • Re:About the same range (Score:4, Insightful)

          by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @12:41AM (#59461136) Journal
          For that price, get an F250. You'll get 15 MPG, and with a 48 gallon tank - you have about a 700 mile range that can be refilled in about 5 minutes (10 gallons per minute). And you can have more torque (the 6.7L diesel engine with 1050 lb-ft), an 8 foot bed, and way more towing and bed capacity. Oh, and save some cash as well...

          • For that price, get an F250. You'll get 15 MPG, and with a 48 gallon tank - you have about a 700 mile range that can be refilled in about 5 minutes (10 gallons per minute). And you can have more torque (the 6.7L diesel engine with 1050 lb-ft), an 8 foot bed, and way more towing and bed capacity. Oh, and save some cash as well...

            Assuming you never fill that tank... Over the lifetime of the vehicle, the relative price of gasoline / diesel and electricity will far more than pay for the cost of the cybertruck. I'm on a time-of-use electric plan and only charge when power is cheap, so the energy cost of operating my Tesla Model S is equivalent to a car that gets 300 miles per gallon. Even at "normal" electricity prices, it would be like 100 miles per gallon. More when fuel prices tick up.

        • the claimed range is nonsense, Telsa marketing b.s.

    • Even if the F-150 had slightly better tires it would probably still lose.

      From what I remember, the F-150, depending upon setup, would actually find a Model S a challenge, much less the Tesla truck.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Sure. The whole comparison is silly. An electric motor develops essentially full torque from a standstill. A gasoline or diesel engine doesn't. Tug of wars start from a standstill.

        • The whole comparison is silly. An electric motor develops essentially full torque from a standstill.

          You totally contradict yourself.

          Full torque from a standstill is good. It's a very relevant metric in a towing competition.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            I realize I should have added more explanation.

            The whole comparison is silly. As the other reply's link points out, most vehicles are capable of generating enough torque to spin their tires. In a tug-of-war competition that means the winner is simply going to be the heavier one, or, for close matches, the one with the better traction control. The comparison isn't silly because torque isn't important, it's silly because the result doesn't depend on torque.

            An electric motor develops essentially full torque f

    • As far as torque, I've told you before. The Tesla is supposed to have up to 1000 lb-ft of torque, but you can get a 1050 lb-ft torque diesel motor in your Ford truck. So no - it doesn't have way more torque than any ICE truck can muster. Flat out. Try reading this time...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jon3k ( 691256 )
        The difference is when they make the torque. Electric motors can do it from 0 rpm, not so much for ICE.
        • If only there was something that would let an ICE make its torque from zero speed, something like a mechanical linkage that we could call a transmission and a TORQUE CONVERTER...

      • As far as torque, I've told you before. The Tesla is supposed to have up to 1000 lb-ft of torque, but you can get a 1050 lb-ft torque diesel motor in your Ford truck.

        Yes, but only the Tesla has 100% torque at 0rpm.

        • From 0 RPM is irrelevant; from 0 MPH is relevant. The Ford can make that power from 0 RPM - it's called power braking. An ICE has this thing called a transmission and a torque converter which allows the engine to build power without moving - much like an electric motor. Seriously, why do people not understand this basic fact?

    • With Tesla being a giant steel box It probably ways way more than the F-150 at this point,

      It's almost as if you didn't understand the part where they moved all the steel from the inside to the outside, resulting in that "big steel box".

  • Of course an EV is better at tug o war (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @10:17PM (#59460724) Homepage Journal

    EVs have better traction control, because they can react faster than it takes an internal combustion engine to roll over to the next cylinder in the firing order. An ICE is better at going long distances without refueling (if it's a diesel, especially) and refueling rapidly. Is there news here?

    • Most trucks have more than enough power to spin their tires (traction control stops them from doing that). The maximum force the tires can transmit to the ground depends on how much friction they generate with the ground. That friction force is proportional to the weight on the tires. A stainless steel truck with an ~1500 lb battery pack is going to beat an empty aluminium frame truck in a tug of war no matter what's powering both vehicle, simply because it's heavier.

      • No, traction control has everything to do with it. Once the wheels slip, you lose all traction. But an EV can get it back so quickly that it regains traction before it loses inertia (or before it gains negative inertia, for that matter.) When you pull on the back of a truck, you are also transferring its weight onto the rear axle. The fact that the back of the Ford is empty is probably the least relevant factor. The Tesla making peak torque at zero RPM is also a huge factor, but without traction control tha

        • Auto-tranny makes it a contest. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @11:14PM (#59460906) Journal

          The F-150 has an automatic transmission (computer controlled with many ratios) with a torque converter. The latter is key. The engine's issues with low-speed torque are not an issue for the truck itself, as the transmission can provide plenty of axle torque with the engine spinning merrily and the wheels stalled.

          It can't do it for long: Each horsepower is 3/4 killowatt and, with the wheels stalled at hight torque, it all becomes heat in the transmission oil. So you have to get going or stop trying before the heating overwhelms the oil cooling and the oil overheats and breaks down. But it's adequate both for starting up and for a short tug-of-war towing contest.

          F-150 also has (or can have) selectable four wheel drive - with a four-low range. So it won't be handicapped by only using some of the wheels, or having too high a gear ratio.

          Having said that: In principle, adequate electric motor traction can be essentially perfect at getting every bit of friction out of the tires. Musk's big departure from previous electric vehicles - from his first prototypes - was always providing plenty of horsepower at the wheels for performance, rather than Detroit's "This is built for eco-wackos so we'll power it like a Volkswagen Bug." approach.

          Meanwhile, an IC engine with an automatic transmission can be a very good approximation, but only an approximation. So with equal weight (including truck bed load) and equal tires the Tesla would be at a slight advantage. With substantially UNequal weight and equal tires, the heavier vehicle should win.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gTsiros ( 205624 )

            can we have some numbers?

            does the torque converter have an heat exchanger for its oil?

            • Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org]:

              Typical stall torque multiplication ratios range from 1.8:1 to 2.5:1 for most automotive applications

            • Yes, they always do. Even a Honda Fit has a loop in the radiator that AT fluid runs through to cool it. Trucks with tow packages will have a separate, small radiator for the transmission instead of a loop in the regular coolant radiator. I haven't really seen one on a non-commercial truck with a fan though, so at rest the transmission cooler wouldn't do much.

              Sam

          • How long can an electric motor do max stall torque before melting?

            I'm actually curious here - I wonder which one is designed to run longer at max stall torque.

          • The F-150 has an automatic transmission (computer controlled with many ratios) with a torque converter. The latter is key. The engine's issues with low-speed torque are not an issue for the truck itself, as the transmission can provide plenty of axle torque with the engine spinning merrily and the wheels stalled.

            You're ignoring the time lag factor, in both directions. The engine takes time to build torque. The torque converter does too. Then, when you're trying to reduce torque to get back traction, it takes time for the engine to stop producing torque, and also time for the various rotating items south of the engine to wind down. The electric motor does both things essentially instantaneously by comparison.

            It can't do it for long

            If it's adequately cooled, and starts out at operating temperature (or even lower!) it can usually do it for

        • Re:Traction control has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @11:26PM (#59460940) Journal
          Physics. Do you understand it? Having the Tesla already pulling the Ford BEFORE the Ford starts is failure number one. The Tesla going uphill (meaning - weight transfer in its favor) is number two. A 4x4 (Tesla) versus a 4x2 (Ford) is number 3. Need I go on?
          • Yeah. You need to explain how Tesla pulling uphill is not in Ford's favour. Was this a weightless environment?
            • Think about weight transfer. When you start to move uphill there is a transfer of sprung weight to the rear. That puts more traction at the wheels closest to the hitch, which means more force available to pull. The converse is true when going downhill - weight transfer for the Ford to the front wheels - which have ZERO motive force, so you're basically unloading the drive wheels of the Ford, making it even worse.
              • It sounds like you don't have any physics background at all, and also have no idea what an F-150 uses for a drive train. On an inclined plane the force of pull will be roughly parallel to the plane, not down by much at all if any. However what will be different is that the Tesla will be pulling against gravity while the Ford will have gravity as an advantage. Furthermore the F-150 is rear wheel drive, so if there is any downward pull it will increase traction on the F-150s drive wheels, not decrease it.

                • It sounds like you don't have any physics background at all, and also have no idea what an F-150 uses for a drive train. On an inclined plane the force of pull will be roughly parallel to the plane, not down by much at all if any. However what will be different is that the Tesla will be pulling against gravity while the Ford will have gravity as an advantage. Furthermore the F-150 is rear wheel drive, so if there is any downward pull it will increase traction on the F-150s drive wheels, not decrease it.

                  This. I was tempted to reply yesterday but the thought of trying to explain physics to LynnwoodRooster made me tired.

                  For those who are interested, here [youtube.com] is a fairly accurate analysis (with math!) of why the tug-of-war contest was silly. It was all about weight, but not about weight transfer, and pulling uphill worked against Tesla, but not very much.

    • Depends how long the race is as long as the diesel can tow a Tesla with no charge left. The real question is how does towing effect drivable distance. What's a 20' boat or full size RV that people tow do to the mileage? Torque is great and all, but I don't think many people are complaining that their current F150s are lacking it so in a sense it's like top speed for most people, which is a number never attained. Mileage though is real world.

  • Explained (Score:4, Informative)

    by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @11:19PM (#59460922)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @11:27PM (#59460944)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Yes, to a company like Ford, electrics ARE still a venture to explore. I wonder if you realize that just last year, Ford sold more F series trucks (just that series) than vehicles that Tesla has ever made - cumulatively. Nearly 1.1 million F series trucks in 2018 versus 816,000 vehicles ever made by Tesla. Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda - they all work at a few orders of magnitude more than Tesla, meaning they do consider a few hundred thousand EVs a year as a "venture".

    • Ford sold slightly over a million F-150 pickup trucks last year. That's just one single model out of Ford Motor Company's entire lineup. Tesla delivered about 255,000 cars last year - all told. Ford sold 2,497,318 vehicles last year. And you're bloviating about Ford "running on fumes?" When Tesla's cheapest model is $40,000, but you can get a Ford Focus for $18,000?

      Let's not forget that Elon closed Tesla Motor's Detroit office as soon as he took the helm [jalopnik.com] and let go a LOT of people with decades of experience

  • Ford still has to prove it's in the 21st. century (Score:4, Interesting)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @11:47PM (#59461006) Journal

    The tug-o-war thing is clearly just silliness. Every redneck in rural America thinks it matters though, as much as a random arm-wrestling match over beers at the bar matters.... If you want them to take your new, weird-looking electric truck seriously, you amuse them with this stuff. It's good marketing, but doesn't mean much when it comes down to if the truck will really be useful for you.

    IMO, what *does* seem really useful with Tesla's offering is the ability to plug in 120 volt, 220 volt and even air powered tools and run them right off the vehicle's battery and air compressor. It also seems useful that it has a loading ramp built into the tailgate, and a built-in electronic cargo cover. Most people I know with pickups pay thousands extra for aftermarket equivalents.

    The people complaining it can't tow full size RV type trailers around for long distances may or may not be right. It sounds like you'll need the most expensive version with the "500 mile range" to get it done practically. (I'd say your range is going to be roughly cut in half if you're towing something like that.) That's probably good enough for some people and not acceptable for others? Whatever.... I think there's still a HUGE gap between the niche of people doing that stuff on the regular and the people who just want a "toy truck" (which I keep seeing others claiming the "Cybertruck" is for). If I was one of the typical self-employed guys I see living in random homes all over this area who do flooring installations, general carpentry, electrical work, well pump/sump pump installation and service, or roofing -- I think Tesla's truck would get the job done just fine while saving a lot of money on fuel. The flat panels and well defined edges mean it'll be an excellent vehicle to do a vinyl wrap on too -- which a lot of them like for advertising their business.

    I also suspect there are a lot of potential customers who DO a lot of towing, but only smaller trailers. My cousin, for example, races and cares for horses as a hobby. She needs to be able to tow a trailer a few times a year that you can put one horse in, to take it to various shows. Seems like Tesla's truck would be fine for that.

  • Towing... (Score:3)

    by Temkin ( 112574 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @12:25AM (#59461092)

    Ok.. so I actually have 20 years of towing an RV under my belt. Both a couple TT's, and a 5th wheel, cross country, two to three days travel at a time.

    It takes roughly 150hp to push the air out of the way of an average size TT at 70 mph... The 5er, with a slightly higher profile needs a little more, maybe 170hp. Unladen, a diesel V8 can get maybe 15 to 18 mpg on the open highway in the US. Climbing hills, and stop and go cut this a bit, but not much. Towing, with a circa 2001 turbo-diesel cuts this to perhaps 10 - 11 mpg. Again, climbing hills/mountains is a rather big factor, as then the weight of the trailer becomes a problem. But most of the time, it's stop & go, and pushing the air our of the way... More modern diesel's don't improve on this much. Most of the R&D these last 20 years has been focused on emissions, not fuel economy.

    So then the problem becomes... How far can you tow your load before needing refuelling/charging? Can I hitch up and drive from San Jose to some place near Tahoe? Or will I need to stop and find a charging station? Can I drive from Austin to the beach in Port Aransas? How does than Disneyworld trip from Cape Girardeau work, etc..? Let alone the snow-bird that leaves the upper peninsula in MI a week too late in freezing temps, with two year old battery packs... Most RV types are used to stopping, and having their house right behind them. Stopping and charging for an hour is a piece of cake for an RV trip. But stopping and charging for 4+ hours per day is a deal killer.

    • The nice thing with charging with the trailer I could see is this: While you're charging, you can run the trailer AC/cook a meal/watch TV/take a shower/whatever in the trailer if it's hooked up to the 220v outlet in the bed of the truck. In fact, if the trailer is always hooked to the truck power, you should be able to pull into the RV campground, plug the truck in to charge, and that's it (sewage connections aside).

      Unless Tesla have done something dumb like disable the outlets when the truck is charging, b

    • Re:Towing... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @12:59PM (#59462650) Journal

      Ok.. so I actually have 20 years of towing an RV under my belt. Both a couple TT's, and a 5th wheel, cross country, two to three days travel at a time.

      Me too. As well as towing boats, flatbeds to haul hay, or my tractor, and more.

      Again, climbing hills/mountains is a rather big factor, as then the weight of the trailer becomes a problem.

      I live in a mountainous area, so hills/mountains are a big problem for towing with an ICEV, but would not be nearly so significant with a BEV, because while both vehicles have to expend a lot of energy to climb, the BEV gets to recover a large portion (1/2 to 2/3, depending on the details), when going back downhill.

      So then the problem becomes... How far can you tow your load before needing refuelling/charging? Can I hitch up and drive from San Jose to some place near Tahoe?

      Well, I'd guess you'll get about 250 miles of range when towing with the 500-mile cybertruck. San Jose to Tahoe is 220 miles... but it's also a 6000-foot climb (you climb more than that going up over the mountains, but you have a net gain of 6000 feet). So, I suspect you would have to stop to charge.

      The question is, how long would you have to stop? Well, the cybertruck and v3 superchargers will charge at 250 kW. I expect that the truck will have a roughly 150 kWh battery so that means that if it could charge at full speed from absolute empty to completely full, it would take 36 minutes to charge. But it has to slow the charge rate as the battery nears full, and you never actually let the battery get empty.

      I suspect that on your notional San Jose to Tahoe trip, what you'd want to do is to drive ~140 miles to the Supercharger in Folsom, arriving with a battery that is about 55% full (110 miles range). Then you'd charge for 15 minutes while you pee and get some snacks, and hit the road again, with an 80% state of charge (SoC) and 200 miles of range. Then you'd drive the 80 miles to Tahoe. I'm not sure what your SoC would be when you arrived; you'd definitely use more than the 30% 80 flat miles would consume, because this is where you do your climb. I'd guess you'd arrive with about 35% (90 miles range) left. The nice thing, though, is that if you were actually making this drive you wouldn't have to guess. The truck would tell you what your arrival SoC would be -- with a great deal of accuracy! -- and you could choose to spend another 15 minutes charging if you wanted, so you started the climb with a full battery.

      Once arrived in Tahoe, of course, what you'd do next would depend on whether you were going to camp where you have power available (e.g. RV park) or in the woods. If at an RV park, you'd plug in and when you're ready to leave you'd start with a full battery... though you might actually want to keep it down to 80% or so so that you don't hit full while descending from the mountains. Much better to have room in the battery and rely on regen to hold you back, rather than having to use brakes.

      If you are going to camp out in the woods (what I'd do, and assuming distributed camping is allowed in the Tahoe area; I've been there but not camped), you might want to stop off at one of the Superchargers near Tahoe for 15 minutes or so to top up before heading into the back country. Not only because you want to have plenty of juice to get up and back plus a large safety margin, but also because you're going to run your RV from the truck's battery.

      If I had a cybertruck, I'd basically never use any propane. My fridge and water heater can already run off of electricity, and I'd add a small heat pump or two for heating and keep the propane furnace as a backup only. I haven't run the numbers, but I'll bet you could run the whole RV in cool weather with less than 20 kWh per week, out of that 150 kWh battery. If you ever start to run a bit low, drive the truck to town and hit the Supercharger again for half an hour. In hot weather where you're running t

  • Over the past 5 years, Ford has sold something like 4.8-5 *million* F-150s. Tesla will sell maybe 100,000 in the next 5 years. Ford is 100 years old and practically invented the modern world.

    Ford has absolutely nothing to be concerned with about Tesla, it's like Muhammed Ali being taunted into a fight with a bar bully. They have nothing to gain by it, Tesla isn't even a dust mote in their eye.

    • Ford is 100 years old

      And it shows. Nothing really in the way of innovation despite their experience in the field. More of the 'same old' dressed up as something new.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by clive27 ( 889511 )
      That's like saying Nokia and Motorola had nothing to be concerned with about Apple.
  • ...like WWE performers have nothing to prove to each other either. If they do have a contest, can Beef Supreme drive one of the trucks? Pleeease? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • If you're talking light duty trucks (F150), Ford wins FLAT OUT on price. And they're also in the same range performance-wise.
    If you're talking heavy duty trucks (F250-350), Ford still wins on price unless you're buying absolute top-level trim package. They also win performance-wise.
    If you're talking Super-Duty trucks (F450), Ford's in the same neighborhood as the Cybertruck price-wise. And it absolutely blows it out performance-wise.

    And by "performance" I'm not talking 0-60 times.

    I'm talking on-board hau

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

      I think you're going to see the bulletproof glass dropped from the shipping design, because they've discovered the hard way that it only works once. The second hit is going to take the window out regardless, so now this just means the shooter has to double-tap -- which they probably already do. The marginal increase in security is outweighed by the cost, the potential to trap people, and the fact that any window that takes a hit will have to be replaced anyhow, so it doesn't shatter on the NEXT hit.

  • A vehicle is the sum of its parts, not which one can pull another in a stupid tug of war.
  • That's why it will sell a lot. hundreds of thousands a year. That is not a lot for Ford, but it IS a lot for tesla, and paves the way for more conventional ones too.
  • I can't understand why Musk decided to out-ugly Pontiac Aztek, but at this level of fugly anything else it could do would be moot.

  • Just proved the Cyber truck is heavier (Score:3, Informative)

    by AndyTheCoderMan ( 1557467 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @10:40AM (#59462076)
    They compared a 4WD to a 2WD F-150 plus the wheels were spinning. All they proved was that the Cyber truck was heavier and had more traction.

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Close