'We're going to electrify the F-Series,' Ford exec says

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by y_p_w

As much as people really don't understand the difference between power and torque, a lot of these engines used in medium-sized industrial vehicles are rather short on power but high on low-rev torque. My 3200 lb WRX can put out a peak of 227 HP. A Caterpillar C7 can apparently put out maybe 350 HP tops, but expected to pull 15,000 or more lbs. But it's a torque monster, so it puts out more power at low revs.


Not sure I follow... ultimately neither engine can do more than 227hp rate of work, or 350hp rate of work. The Cat will presumably live at WOT for days on end, not so sure on the Subie. Ultimately, you can use gearing to increase torque, but hp doesn't change.

Yes, big diesel belts out more torque at low rpm--it has to, in order to make the hp equation work (torque*rpm/5252). But if you take a 350hp gas motor and run it into a 2:1 or 3:1 transmission so as to get the same output shaft speed, you'd have the same hp and the same torque as a 350hp diesel. [Now if that gas motor could live for days at WOT, that is a different question--it's possible, they used to make monster gas motors, after all.]

I'm just saying it's going to take a lot more to get that gas engine to even get started pulling a big load compared to a torque monster. But isn't the whole point to pick a better tool for the job?

I really don't get the hate for electric vehicles. The characteristics of a large electric motor would seem to be ideal for certain applications. Right now of course there's the issue of range, but I've worked college jobs in the shipping industry where we were paying drayage companies to haul container loads relatively short distances to local customers. They were also waiting in lines at rail or container ports with the engine on.

Tesla is claiming 500 miles on a full charge for their tractor and 30 minutes for a charge that will give up to 400 miles. I figure something like that would be adequate (maybe even overkill) for short haul trucking like the example I gave. But then there might be smaller vehicles with lower range just like there are sleeper tractors for long haul vs short haul tractors.

 

[Shannow]

OOOOOHHHH there goes that word "hate"...I love how that always gets brought into engineering discourse.

supton explained the relationship between power and torque...if you don't get that, no wonder you have to resort to "hate"

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
The characteristics of a large electric motor would seem to be ideal for certain applications. Right now of course there's the issue of range, but I've worked college jobs in the shipping industry where we were paying drayage companies to haul container loads relatively short distances to local customers. They were also waiting in lines at rail or container ports with the engine on.

That niche is possibly where they'll be stuck for the foreseeable future.

Electric forklifts are all over the place for a reason. Electric long haul trucks, airplanes, and oil tankers are not, also for a reason. Elon Musk's fanciful pitches do not change this.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by Shannow
OOOOOHHHH there goes that word "hate"...I love how that always gets brought into engineering discourse.

supton explained the relationship between power and torque...if you don't get that, no wonder you have to resort to "hate"

Well yeah. I understand the relationship between power, torque, energy, and work. Or at least I did when I took Physics 7A. I'd think that an electric motor can provide maximum torque at 0 RPM is a good thing for pulling loads.

In this topic I see a lot of discussion discounting the practicality of this endeavor by claiming "can it do this?" or "can it do that?" Maybe hate is too strong a word, but there seem to be those who want this to fail for irrational reasons.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by y_p_w
The characteristics of a large electric motor would seem to be ideal for certain applications. Right now of course there's the issue of range, but I've worked college jobs in the shipping industry where we were paying drayage companies to haul container loads relatively short distances to local customers. They were also waiting in lines at rail or container ports with the engine on.

That niche is possibly where they'll be stuck for the foreseeable future.

Electric forklifts are all over the place for a reason. Electric long haul trucks, airplanes, and oil tankers are not, also for a reason. Elon Musk's fanciful pitches do not change this.

Musk may be a carnival barker, but something like this could be very good in that niche. But it's all baby steps for now. There's a ton of short-haul trucking out there, and a lot of applications where a medium duty electric truck could be useful. Why so much criticism of what a vehicle can't do when it was never meant to do such things? There's always room for technologies that do little things more efficiently than technologies that are more suitable for doing big things.

 

[Garak]

That's my biggest problem, is claiming a solution for everything when that's clearly not the case. Justifiably, people want green power and green product solutions. Invariably, though, when people want solutions, someone will try to sell snake oil. It's worse when there are no real solutions yet, since all you'll get is snake oil.

Musk isn't claiming to be desiring to just fit niches while he can. He claims to be able to do everything from long haul trucking to being able to replace every vehicle on the road, and he has the audacity to give deadlines that he routinely ignores.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by y_p_w

Well yeah. I understand the relationship between power, torque, energy, and work. Or at least I did when I took Physics 7A. I'd think that an electric motor can provide maximum torque at 0 RPM is a good thing for pulling loads.


I can put a long enough lever on a gearbox shaft to provide the same amount of torque....but unless I can spin it awfully fast, I won't be achieving much.

A torque converter MULTIPLIES the take off torque, so clearly, it's better eh ??? more torque than 100% of the torque...right at take-off too....The cat is designed to operate above peak torque, and below peak power so that as you lose speed, you pick up torque...and do it ALL day..your WRX clearly not...and a Tesla playing "pit pony" clearly isn't either.

I don't know why people are fixated on the torque at 0RPM...a steam train could do that too, we just don't use them that much any more...they took the coal after the pit pony pulled it out...did the Tesla drag the debris to the dump site, or merely prove that it could drag a load on a virtually frictionless environment for a few feet towards a camera ?

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by A_Harman
If you're engineering automobiles and not merely bolting parts together in a garage, it's not a simple matter of "just" adding heavy springs. If Ford is going to make an electric version of the F150, to do so economically it has to stay within the maximum GVWR of the vehicle platform, which is 7850 pounds. They can't blithely add 2830 pounds and raise the GVW to 10680 pounds without having to beef up the chassis that supports it all. Then the structure of the truck gets heavier, raising the GVW even more, and sacrificing even more range, requiring a larger battery pack to maintain range.... Stop the madness! Now you've gotten into a never-ending spiral of vehicle mass versus range. Then however large and heavy the new vehicle ends up, it needs to be crash-tested, life-tested, and all the new components sourced for production. Then it's not just another version of an existing product, it's a whole new product, and one I bet they couldn't sell as many of as the gas version.

Fair enough; I was Blythe making it sound like it was just springs. It's not. I get that the frame and everything has to get heavier. In my mind though, that is what happens as one goes 1/2T -> 3/4T -> 1T and then beyond. The various bits do get heavier, but the payload capacity of the vehicle must be exponentially increasing relative to the additional vehicle weight.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
I'll do you one better:

A VW towing a Boeing! Someone should send this picture to the folks at Airbus...

Airbus has problems moving the A380 that not even 100 Volkswagen SUVs can solve

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by Shannow
I don't know why people are fixated on the torque at 0RPM...a steam train could do that too, we just don't use them that much any more...they took the coal after the pit pony pulled it out...did the Tesla drag the debris to the dump site, or merely prove that it could drag a load on a virtually frictionless environment for a few feet towards a camera ?

Steam is a PITA to keep the boilers regulated, even with fuel oil. I guess it might be possible to have automated regulation, but steam isn't coming back so why bother? However, even with steam, a lot of mining and lumber locomotives had reduction gearing.

I don't think a similar size gasoline or diesel powered vehicle could pull that load. That stunt obviously would be poorly suited for a manual transmission where only the mother of all clutch dumps might get it moving a little bit before it stalls. And how long is a torque converter going to last trying to pull 125 tons uphill? That an electric motor has maximum torque at 0 RPM is precisely how they can get it going slowly without causing any damage to the powertrain. Also - it's not just frictionless rails, but that they've moving it uphill.

Yeah - I get that it was an exercise of Elon Musk's bravado.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by y_p_w
The characteristics of a large electric motor would seem to be ideal for certain applications. Right now of course there's the issue of range, but I've worked college jobs in the shipping industry where we were paying drayage companies to haul container loads relatively short distances to local customers. They were also waiting in lines at rail or container ports with the engine on.

That niche is possibly where they'll be stuck for the foreseeable future.

Electric forklifts are all over the place for a reason. Electric long haul trucks, airplanes, and oil tankers are not, also for a reason. Elon Musk's fanciful pitches do not change this.

Musk may be a carnival barker, but something like this could be very good in that niche. But it's all baby steps for now. There's a ton of short-haul trucking out there, and a lot of applications where a medium duty electric truck could be useful. Why so much criticism of what a vehicle can't do when it was never meant to do such things? There's always room for technologies that do little things more efficiently than technologies that are more suitable for doing big things.


No doubt about it. I love my Toyota electric lifts. When going in and out of freezers storing food, it's the only way to go. Short range electric is a proven and active concept for commercial.

What a lot of people "hate" is:

1. Corrupt forcing of this tech onto the market.

2. Claims this "green" technology does anything but export environmental harm somewhere else.

3. Claims this technology is "new" or "the Future".

4. Claims this technology can replace the ICE entirely.

5. Junkie/Circus stunts demonstrating slanted/biased/out-of-context "superiority" of BEVs.

6. Smug and sanctimonious attitudes associated with all of the above.

(Not accusing you of any of the above, just saying)

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by A_Harman
If you're engineering automobiles and not merely bolting parts together in a garage, it's not a simple matter of "just" adding heavy springs. If Ford is going to make an electric version of the F150, to do so economically it has to stay within the maximum GVWR of the vehicle platform, which is 7850 pounds. They can't blithely add 2830 pounds and raise the GVW to 10680 pounds without having to beef up the chassis that supports it all. Then the structure of the truck gets heavier, raising the GVW even more, and sacrificing even more range, requiring a larger battery pack to maintain range.... Stop the madness! Now you've gotten into a never-ending spiral of vehicle mass versus range. Then however large and heavy the new vehicle ends up, it needs to be crash-tested, life-tested, and all the new components sourced for production. Then it's not just another version of an existing product, it's a whole new product, and one I bet they couldn't sell as many of as the gas version.

Fair enough; I was Blythe making it sound like it was just springs. It's not. I get that the frame and everything has to get heavier. In my mind though, that is what happens as one goes 1/2T -> 3/4T -> 1T and then beyond. The various bits do get heavier, but the payload capacity of the vehicle must be exponentially increasing relative to the additional vehicle weight.


That's a good point that you bring up. How much weight does a higher GVW rating add to a truck?
Ford's F150 at the maximum GVW of 7850, has a curb weight of 4650, and payload of 3200 pounds.
Ford's F250 at the maximum GVW of 10000, has a curb weight of 6160, and payload of 3840 pounds.

So for a gain of 2150 pounds GVW, the curb weight increased by 1510 pounds, and payload increased by 640 pounds. So 70% of the additional weight was consumed by increased curb weight, and only 30% show up as additional payload. This is not as good as I was expecting.

But I did make a major error in calculating how much the electric F150 would weigh in the previous note. I forgot to subtract the weight of the driveline that would be eliminated in the conversion to electric propulsion! If 4wd is desired, the e-truck could have four motors at the wheels, and those would probably offset the weight of the Ecoboost V6 that gets thrown out (~400 lbs). But the transmission, transfer case, and axles would all be eliminated, and thereby go to offset some of the weight of the 3100 pound battery pack. I estimate 200 pounds for the trans, 100 for the transfer case, and 250 each for the axles, for a total of 800 pounds. So the estimated increment of weight would be 2030 pounds, not 2830 as I quoted above. This changes the picture somewhat, and would leave the electric F150 with a GVW of 9880 pounds, curb weight of 6680, and payload of 3200 pounds. But this GVW is in the range of the F250, not the existing F150.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by A_Harman
But this GVW is in the range of the F250, not the existing F150.

IIRC, when GVWR exceeds 8,500lb the emissions rules go out the window. So would it need to be electrified or not? I'm not sure if such heavy vehicles are used in CAFE rules for an automaker.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by A_Harman
But this GVW is in the range of the F250, not the existing F150.

IIRC, when GVWR exceeds 8,500lb the emissions rules go out the window. So would it need to be electrified or not? I'm not sure if such heavy vehicles are used in CAFE rules for an automaker.


Emissions rules don't go out the window, because heavy duty pickups have to have DPF's, EGR, and SCR.
Fuel Economy standards may not apply to a company's CAFE number above 8500 pounds. That would be a big reason to keep the electric F150 GVW at 7850 lbs so Ford could get CAFE benefit from its high eMPG.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted by A_Harman

Emissions rules don't go out the window, because heavy duty pickups have to have DPF's, EGR, and SCR.
Fuel Economy standards may not apply to a company's CAFE number above 8500 pounds. That would be a big reason to keep the electric F150 GVW at 7850 lbs so Ford could get CAFE benefit from its high eMPG.


Yep, that's why all the manufactures are getting into the electric vehicle biz. CAFE credits. Each EV they sell counts as two sales at the vehicle's equivalent eMPG.

Ed

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by A_Harman
But this GVW is in the range of the F250, not the existing F150.

IIRC, when GVWR exceeds 8,500lb the emissions rules go out the window. So would it need to be electrified or not? I'm not sure if such heavy vehicles are used in CAFE rules for an automaker.


Emissions rules don't go out the window, because heavy duty pickups have to have DPF's, EGR, and SCR.
Fuel Economy standards may not apply to a company's CAFE number above 8500 pounds. That would be a big reason to keep the electric F150 GVW at 7850 lbs so Ford could get CAFE benefit from its high eMPG.

Doah! you're right, I was thinking CAFE.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Originally Posted by CT8.[/quote


Let's be honest 90% of a pickups life is running around with a bed full of air and nothing in tow.

My pickup bed is full of rarified air.[/quote]

About 78% of the box is filled with pure nitrogen on mine.

 

[Dallas69]

I will never get an elec car unless I have no choice.
Sheep

 

[1978elcamino]

I bet the only reason for a hybrid is to get the segment closer to CAFE.