Report: F-150 Lightning loses about quarter of its range when carrying maximum payload

[Zprime29]

"On average, the AAA loaded force curve specifies 33.1 percent more applied force than the AAA unloaded force curve from 5 to 80 mph. "

That seems absurdly high. They determined this using a coasting test where they speed up to 77mph and put it in neutral to coast back down. Ideally, this lets them know how setup the dyno to mimic real world resistance. I feel like something to do with the truck being in neutral (assuming they did that correctly) vs an ICE being in neutral is the hang up.

Report PDF

Sponsored

 

[Blainestang]

Point #2 definitely changes things, and IIRC Out of Spec even noted the high loss might be attributed to the water container sticking out and affecting aero as it didn't impact the Rivian as much (which also self levels - which is annoying as it levels itself when you're trying to unhook a trailer!)

I think the Rivian lost more range than the Lightning in their testing, and they attributed that to the water tank sticking up substantially more above the Rivian's cabin, but barely above the Lightning's cabin. Same point you were making, I think, but just a swap of which truck mostly blocked the tank.

Based on the driving I've done, which includes sticking a 800lb lawn mower into the bed - I just don't buy it and I'm not sure how the results came to be...time to read the article.

Yeah, If they said 10% loss from 20% more weight, I'd say "OK, maybe", but 25% loss is just way too high. Doesn't pass the sniff test of normal experiences, even though I haven't actually put 1400 lb in mine, yet. Weight just doesn't have a 1:1 effect on efficiency with EVs, let alone a >1:1 effect.

 

[Captain337]

I don’t think a dyno will account for momentum. I’ve personally noted less efficiency loss with a loaded bed (below cab height) than is reported here. My belief is greater weight gives more regen.

 

[Blainestang]

My belief is greater weight gives more regen.

You're right. It absolutely does.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

I don’t think a dyno will account for momentum. I’ve personally noted less efficiency loss with a loaded bed (below cab height) than is reported here. My belief is greater weight gives more regen.

That's what I tell my wife when she glares at my breakfast bacon. "Honey, I'm just trying to save on electricity. More weight = more regen"

 

[Blainestang]

"On average, the AAA loaded force curve specifies 33.1 percent more applied force than the AAA unloaded force curve from 5 to 80 mph. "

That seems absurdly high. They determined this using a coasting test where they speed up to 77mph and put it in neutral to coast back down. Ideally, this lets them know how setup the dyno to mimic real world resistance. I feel like something to do with the truck being in neutral (assuming they did that correctly) vs an ICE being in neutral is the hang up.

Report PDF

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. For instance, if "neutral" still has a tiny bit of regen, or something like that. Although, that wouldn't explain why the unladed and laden tests are so far apart.

 

[Zprime29]

What really bothers me about this, is that they just accepted the results as true facts and decided to publish them without any due diligence. No external research to see if the results make sense. Would've taken them less than 5 minutes to see that there are real world tests doing the same thing with wildly different results. That should have made them question their own results and done something to figure out why there's a significant delta between OoS tests and theirs. It's just lazy testing done by some interns. AAA should be ashamed.

 

[Blainestang]

What really bothers me about this, is that they just accepted the results as true facts and decided to publish them without any due diligence. No external research to see if the results make sense. Would've taken them less than 5 minutes to see that there are real world tests doing the same thing with wildly different results. That should have made them question their own results and done something to figure out why there's a significant delta between OoS tests and theirs. It's just lazy testing done by some interns. AAA should be ashamed.

SOMEBODY at AAA involved in the testing or publishing or whatever should have thought : "Hmm, this seems REALLY high. 33% road load increase from a 20% increase in weight despite no increase in aero drag?!" They should have done even a quick "real-world" test to see if it made any sense. 20 miles with the sandbags and 20 miles without them and they would have found out it was nonsense.

 

[4Reeley]

Another variable that is overlooked by this methodology is driver behavior. I think one reason we are all experiencing better efficiency compared to the SAE testing is that from a very basic level, we simply drive differently under payload. The testing holds all variables constant to isolate the effects of payload - but this may not be an accurate depiction of actual driver behavior. Payload causes a driver to behave differently, which reduces its correlation to reduced efficiency. My opinion - you may disagree.

In general I think it's a safe assumption to say most of us accelerate, brake, and approach corners, intersections and other vehicles in the road differently under payload. The same theory applies when I have my children in the back heading to the park on the weekend vs. driving by myself while running late to a work meeting.

I also agree that they may have disregarded regen due to the test procedures calling for Neutral coasting, but I haven't seen anything confirming no Neutral regen in the F-150 Lightning. Other EV's don't regen in Neutral. That would be an absolutely HUGE miss in this test, and surprising because they provide a summary of regen benefits for driving range in EV's in the report itself. To then subsequently deny that benefit by utilizing the methodology that requires neutral coasting is a head-scratcher.

 

[Maquis]

Summary:
”We did a different test than the EPA test and we got different results!”

 

[wighty]

I don't know what I was expecting, but I just have to say... the comments here from the foxnews article on this is just, ah man there's a lot of work to do with educating the frequenters over there: https://www.foxnews.com/auto/how-far-electric-f-150-haul-load-aaa

I'm not really gonna argue the point that EVs maybe aren't a suitable replacement for a lot of people right now, but a whole lot of non-sense and head in the sand arguments from the comments.

 

[laselvasurf]

This is not accurate from my experience in my SR XLT. I've done multiple 100+ mile trips with 4 guys in the cab(total around 1000lbs+) and another 1200lbs+ of tools in the bed + funk. All driving was on the highway, with very little elevation change, I saw maybe 3-5% loss in efficiency. I appreciate the scientific approach AAA took with this test, but I feel like something isn't right.

 

[vandy1981]

Yeah, I mean, the problem with AAA's testing could be that the tests just aren't very good.

The AAA used SAE testing standards, not their propriety testing (aside from changing the payload). But that's besides the point.

The point is that the SAE/EPA protocol is so complicated as to be completely useless for a non-engineer consumer.

I fully believe that AAA saw the 25% reduction in range using the SAE protocol. The problem with SAE is that few people understand these protocols so it's impossible for normal people to relate their real-world experience to the testing results.

We would all be much better off if the EPA standardized around something simple and understandable, like the Out of Spec 70 mph range test. City cycles are irrelevant IMHO because people don't really care about EV efficiency or range in the city and during a normal commute. They just want to know how far they can go before needing to charge on a highway road trip.

If a car is tested at 70 mph at 72 degrees F on flat ground and zero windspeed, it's easier for someone to understand why range is lower than the estimate in colder weather going up hill against a headwind.

With SAE/EPA we end up with threads of people trying to compare their real-world experience to an artificial and opaque testing scheme.

 

[jdmackes]

I don't know what I was expecting, but I just have to say... the comments here from the foxnews article on this is just, ah man there's a lot of work to do with educating the frequenters over there: https://www.foxnews.com/auto/how-far-electric-f-150-haul-load-aaa

I'm not really gonna argue the point that EVs maybe aren't a suitable replacement for a lot of people right now, but a whole lot of non-sense and head in the sand arguments from the comments.

The people that frequent fox news are probably never going to buy an EV anyway, and are less likely to listen to anything that might contridict their worldview.

 

[detansinn]

Real world experience... I picked up a motorcycle that weighs about 450lbs. 64 miles round trip. No notable range difference on either 32 mile leg -- 45 to 55 MPH roads with hills. Hauled a bunch of furniture around this weekend and it was pretty much the same.

Two months and 6k miles into my ownership experience, I am getting tired of the anti-EV truck clickbait stuff. The Lightning is an awesome truck.

Sponsored