Limited Lightning Tow Range

[Pedaldude]

I do wonder if they have the range extender or something up their sleeve for 2022 or 2023 since most people who know about EVs know the marketing material showing an airstream is at best grossly exaggerated. What would compel the Ford marketing team to show off images of this thing towing? Why then be guarded about the towing range when interviewed by media? Was it just to increase adoption by normal truck users? But then wouldn't there be backlash when they find out it's physically impossible for a current generation battery to do this for longer trips? It seems like they're setting it up for future negative press by pushing the towing as a feature.

The whole thing is very strange, I am very confused.

The inefficiency of internal combustion engines and their associated drivelines are so huge, that aerodynamic drag and towing don't impact their range as much as they do in a battery electric vehicle.

The only reason why batteries can provide the range that they do, is because of this greater efficiency from the electric drivetrain.

Better aerodynamics also helps in EVs but the Lightning is going to be the worst of all the battery electric vehicles in both drag coefficient and frontal area until the Hummer comes out. I do notice that the Lightning is equipped with aero wheels which should help around 1-2%, which means anyone swapping out their wheels/tires with anything other than land speed record full moon hubcaps and skinnier low rolling resistance tires is in for a surprise!

Despite battery technology always improving, it will probably never reach the energy densities of gasoline and diesel fuel. However, because of the better driveline efficiency, we are already seeing electric sedans that match the range of their fossil fuel powered counterparts.

The main and inherent deficiencies of all battery technologies in comparison with fossil fuel energy is the simple fact that the battery already contains all the energy needed for powering the electric motor. Where in the case of fossil fuel, it's the potential energy being stored in both the fuel you carry in the gas tank and the air that's freely available in the atmosphere. This means roughly, that when you have a 22 gallon tank of gas, you need 2,000 pounds of air to create the energy from the 132 pounds of gas stored in the tank.*

None of the atmospheric air needs to be stored in your gas engine truck and the fuel tank gets lighter as fuel is burned, in the Lightning and every other battery electric vehicle, the battery will weigh the same empty as it does full and that's why it's not as simple as just adding bigger batteries.

To show how far battery technology has come though, there's already battery powered light planes and sail planes that face an even bigger handicap than motor vehicles when it comes to the burdens faced by batteries. In the case of light planes, there's enough endurance to provide basic flight instruction for taking off and landing. For sailplanes, it can be enough for them to take off on their own without a tow plane and then they can fold up the propeller and glide for hours using thermals the same way vultures do. Commercial air transport will be a different story, since big airplanes are basically flying fuel tanks with some room for passengers or cargo. With the 747 and A380 starting to be retired from airlines, it's only a matter of time before air travel starts shrinking in one way or another.

Back to the topic of Ford, they've already filed patents for an in bed range extender and while a kludge, it's better than nothing:

https://fordauthority.com/2020/10/ford-files-patent-for-electric-f-150-range-extending-generator/

A more elegant solution would be a plug in hybrid that takes advantage of the strengths of EV powertrains and dispenses with some of the the worst parts of internal combustion engine powertrains, like the transmission and bevel drive going into the differential housing, which sap a lot of energy from the engine. (Which is notably why Detroit muscle cars had such inflated horsepower figures in the 60's, it was because they were publishing the figures at the flywheel and not the tires.) Honda's new Accord hybrid does this and the experience is seamless, without the transmission a lot of energy loss is eliminated and with electric motors helping acceleration, which they're excellent at, the ICE power unit can use the gasoline in the tank when it's at speed. Something the size of a motorcycle engine could power the F150 Lightning at highway speeds and barely impact any of its other strengths while providing extended range. The only problem is that it wouldn't be a fully electric vehicle anymore but a hybrid powertrain and those are less in vogue now, having been around for decades and becoming so common that one can see them every day without thinking about it. Battery electric vehicles are still novel enough that you notice.

Ford, along with other Detroit manufacturers are so used to obfuscation of their towing numbers that they likely had little hesitation when showing an image of Lightning towing a double axle airstream. They know showing trucks towing shit, splashing through mud and dudes using miter saws on tailgates is going to sell trucks. So whatever justification the executives and marketing department gave themselves, it's now up to engineering and production to make it possible.

*a huge amount of this energy is wasted as heat, through both the radiator and exhaust. Despite this, there's still so much energy left over that even the most inefficient vehicles can travel long distances on fossil fuels.

Sponsored

 

[Peanutsparisinsyrup]

Back to the topic of Ford, they've already filed patents for an in bed range extender and while a kludge, it's better than
A more elegant solution would be a plug in hybrid that takes advantage of the strengths of EV powertrains and dispenses with some of the the worst parts of internal combustion engine powertrains, like the transmission and bevel drive going into the differential housing, which sap a lot of energy from the engine. (Which is notably why Detroit muscle cars had such inflated horsepower figures in the 60's, it was because they were publishing the figures at the flywheel and not the tires.) Honda's new Accord hybrid does this and the experience is seamless, without the transmission a lot of energy loss is eliminated and with electric motors helping acceleration, which they're excellent at, the ICE power unit can use the gasoline in the tank when it's at speed. Something the size of a motorcycle engine could power the F150 Lightning at highway speeds and barely impact any of its other strengths while providing extended range.

Ford, along with other Detroit manufacturers are so used to obfuscation of their towing numbers that they likely had little hesitation when showing an image of Lightning towing a double axle airstream. They know showing trucks towing shit, splashing through mud and dudes using miter saws on tailgates is going to sell trucks. So whatever justification the executives and marketing department gave themselves, it's now up to engineering and production to make it possible.

I guess my big concern is there will be a lot of disillusioned people that are very uninformed and angry the new F150 can't do what the pictures show. Aside from the cult of elon and Tesla a lot of the reason EV people are defensive is because misinformation plagues the industry. Some intentional.

As for the accord, I actually own a plug-in Clarity and having driven almost everything I can get my hands on "hybrid" for work. This car is amazing performance wise for what it is. It uses the same system as the accord and people are usually confused when they get in my car and find out it's nothing like a Prius. That system is really interesting in sport mode where the engine cutting on and off is almost seamless.

I'd love a pickup for work with those characteristics.

 

[Blainestang]

I guess my big concern is there will be a lot of disillusioned people that are very uninformed and angry the new F150 can't do what the pictures show. Aside from the cult of elon and Tesla a lot of the reason EV people are defensive is because misinformation plagues the industry. Some intentional.

I mean, the truck CAN do what the pictures show... just not for 230 or 300 miles per charge.

I hope Ford makes that clearer at some point in the process, for sure, BUT the buyer needs to take some responsibility, too. If you're too poorly informed to realize that towing a huge airstream takes a crap ton of energy, and think you're still going to get near the rated range, well, bummer, I guess. Ford and the buyer have responsibility here, but unless Ford explicitly says it can tow X number of miles, it's ultimately the buyer's responsibility to do the 3 minutes of research that would turn up concerns about towing range with the Lightning (or any EV).

A similar thing happened with the BMW i3 with the little 35hp range extender engine.

People would show up at the bottom of a mountain, with the main battery near-dead, and think they were going to blast up the mountain at 70mph powered only by a 35hp engine. In fact, some of them sued over it because they could only drive 40mph or whatever. BMW and the dealers did a poor job informing the customers, as is par for the course and expected for all cars, but especially EVs, but the buyer should have done 10 minutes of research before spending tens of thousands of dollars, too.

All that being said, it WOULD be unfortunate for EVs to get a bad reputation based on bad experiences by people who couldn't be bothered to do any research... and if they're that irresponsible, then yeah, they'll probably be loud about any issue they think is Ford's fault.

 

[Theo1000]

To be honest the Ford Hybrid Electric is always there. And for those the F-150 Lighting isn't working out, I can see a quick trade-in and switch to the Hybrid.

Why not try it and see what the Lightning can do. There are huge advantages to the BEV drive train if you are willing to work with it. You can always change your mind later.

 

[Pedaldude]

To be honest the Ford Hybrid Electric is always there...Why not try it and see what the Lightning can do...

Exactly, from some of the posts, you would think that these are people that are only allowed to have one vehicle. If you are finding yourself pulling 40' trailers, you probably have room to park a SuperDuty for dedicated towing. It's crazy, some of the ad hoc arguments being used to invalidate what is, on paper, a very capable EV.

...It's "NEW" technology and it WILL get better over time.

But if you're planning to tow your 5th wheel...

While much new technology has made EV's viable alternatives, the basic concept has been around for over a century. At one point lead acid battery electric vehicles outnumbered gasoline engine cars and their reliability made them a favorite of doctors who made house calls and wealthy women who didn't want to get greasy or suffer the indignity of crank starting the old school cars back in the day.

Read post #62 above, battery technology will likely improve but it will probably never exceed the potential energy stored in fossil fuels. If hydrogen fuel cells are made practical for automotive use, they would share the advantages of both high energy density and high driveline efficiency.

Gasoline power once shared the same dilemma as electric does now. Gas stations, while ubiquitous now, at one point in history were few and far between. Ford should know this but making an electric truck is only half the solution, fast charging stations are a necessity if EVs are to become more than a novelty. Tesla, with all its faults, succeeded in this area and in my opinion, the publicity around its charging stations was as much part of its success as their cars.

Ford needs to take full charge of making at least a small network of charging stations and not leave half their destiny in the hands of 'strategic partners.' The Bolt is a commuter car and the Hummer will be an expensive toy. If Ford wants to present the Lightning as a viable ICE alternative and compete against other manufacturers. They're going to need to provide a charging network that can let the average person drive coast to coast and not feel like they're Lewis and Clark or the Donner Party.

 

[Theo1000]

Ford needs to take full charge of making at least a small network of charging stations and not leave half their destiny in the hands of 'strategic partners.' The Bolt is a commuter car and the Hummer will be an expensive toy. If Ford wants to present the Lightning as a viable ICE alternative and compete against other manufacturers. They're going to need to provide a charging network that can let the average person drive coast to coast and not feel like they're Lewis and Clark or the Donner Party.

To be fair to Ford this was the job of all those melanges of 'Charging' companies that have raised $Billions from EV investors and have almost diddly squat to show for it. Take EVGo that raised another $2.5 Billion from investors and spent $Billions over the past 10 years. All it has to show is a few 100 50 kw DCFC stations and some of the most painful almost punitive rules to use it stations. Or the complete failure that is Chargepoint having also raise $Billions only to refuse to install chargers and set up the largest network of L2 chargers that is obsolete almost as soon as it began.

And that includes TSLA that now has a sea of 400v DC chargers when the standards are now approaching 1000v. Those EA stations are rated for ~ 950v BTW and this is part of the struggle with them. They are bleeding edge technology far above TSLA with a lot more top end. There is a reason EA decided to go risk taking bleeding edge, something VW would never have done. The situation w/ CCS to TSLA has drawn very close to even in just the past 2 years and I think its going to flip on TSLA in the blink of an eye.

TSLA has been so obsessed with self driving, they have dropped the ball everywhere else, including charging technology, quality of cars, service, Truck, Semi, etc.

This lack of bandwidth is exactly why Ford did not get into charging.

 

[Pedaldude]

Since the 70's EVs have been rife with scams, contrepreneurs and other machinations. It's no shock that would carry on with the associated infrastructure. Especially today, with so many crazily overvalued stocks. Hopefully Ford has made the right choice. The whole thing is going to be interesting.

The battery exchange scheme is an interesting one, sort of a lease like welding cylinders. The only thing is that they're so huge and integrated into the structure that at this point you might as well swap the entire car. It could become a thing for over the road trucks. The other thing is that if it's easier to swap out the battery pack, it'll be easier for thieves to steal, though my guess is that charging cables will become more likely to be pilfered by scumbags.

 

[Brian Head Yankee]

EV trailer range extender

This is a hack but I see it catching on eventually by Airstream etc. A small pack and wheel motor would cancel out the drag of the trailer to restore an EV truck back to full range.

 

[Bluechip506]

Unlike how they butchered the Mustang name with an electric SUV that's slower than molasses.

BTW, I suspect Ford will eventually offer the PB will a larger battery pack.

While I agree with you about the Mustang name I'm not sure why you think the MachE is "slower than molasses". It's quicker than all but the performance Mustangs and the MachE GT will be much quicker than the base version. And as you said, it is an SUV, not a two door coupe.

I am not sure abut Ford offering a much larger battery pack. I would think they already maxed out the available space/weight. They need to come up with a more energy dense pack of the same size. Just throwing more batteries at the problem just causes more problems.

 

[Theo1000]

EV trailer range extender

This is a hack but I see it catching on eventually by Airstream etc. A small pack and wheel motor would cancel out the drag of the trailer to restore an EV truck back to full range.

You wouldn't even need a motor. The F-150 lightning is plenty powerful. Just a 50 kw electric cable to plug into the f150, some software tweak to drive in charge mode, and you would be good to go.

I can actually see something like this, a range extender battery pack included with the Trailer.

 

[Brian Head Yankee]

Me too. However, I can’t see it for a boat trailer. The results could be shocking and the battery life shorted.

 

[ChasingCoral]

To be honest the Ford Hybrid Electric is always there. And for those the F-150 Lighting isn't working out, I can see a quick trade-in and switch to the Hybrid.

Why not try it and see what the Lightning can do. There are huge advantages to the BEV drive train if you are willing to work with it. You can always change your mind later.

In one of Farley's recent interviews he made it clear that the Lightning can haul. He also said it's not the best choice for those pulling big trailers that need to do 1000 miles regularly -- for them Ford has the EcoBoost Hybrid.

If one truck did everything for everyone, Ford wouldn't have so many flavors of F-150. Lightning will do what most F-150 owners need. For the rest, there are other F-150 options.

 

[Rgwinn]

Here is TFLs explanation, they actually tested a Tesla Model Y with a 300mi range towing a 5k trailer, range dropped to 100mi

 

[Blainestang]

Here is TFLs explanation, they actually tested a Tesla Model Y with a 300mi range towing a 5k trailer, range dropped to 100mi

Personally, I don't think the Model X is a great apples-to-apples comparison as far as relative range loss when towing.

One, the Model X is probably more generous in its range estimate in the first place. If it was rated at 300 miles, they'd probably get notably less than that on the highway even without the trailer. (FWIW, my old Tesla actually matched EPA efficiency on trips at ~70mph, but often their EPA estimates aren't as conservative vs other manufacturers).

The other thing is that the X is much more aerodynamic and efficient than the F-150, so the drag of the trailer would have a much bigger relative effect on range as a percentage vs the F-150.

Based on their relative efficiency (2 mi/kWh for the Lightning; 3+mi/kWh for the Model X), we'd conclude that the Lightning uses 50% more power to propel itself than the Model X does.

So, lets say it takes 50hp to propel the Model X at 70mph. That's in the ballpark, probably. That would mean we'd be in the ballpark to say that the Lightning would use 75hp to propel itself at 70mph.

The trailer itself probably requires an additional 75hp of power to cruise at 70mph. (In reality, it would add less when being towed by the rolling brick F-150 than the suppository Model X, but let's keep it sorta simple for this one).

So, what's the result?

Model X:
No Trailer: 50hp to cruise; 0.333 kWh/mile (3 mi/kWh), 300 mile range (100kWh battery)
w/ Trailer: 125hp to cruise; 0.8325 kWh/mile (1.2 mi/kWh), 120 mile range
Difference: 300 miles -> 120 miles

Lightning:
No Trailer: 75hp to cruise; 0.5 kWh/mile (2 mi/kWh), 300 mile range (160kWh battery)
With Trailer: 150hp to cruise; 0.25 kWh/mile (1 mi/kWh), 160 mile range (160kWh battery)
Difference: 300 miles -> 160 miles

So, in my opinion, the Lightning will not take nearly as big of a hit as the Model X when towing. It's still going to be a big hit, but not as bad as any of the current rolling-suppository EVs.

 

[Theo1000]

Yup! Should also mention that if you drive slower @ 55 mph your gains will also be much higher than with the TSLA, since so much of the inefficacy is coming from the profile.

Sponsored