HaulingAss
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2020
- Threads
- 11
- Messages
- 4,805
- Reaction score
- 10,104
- Location
- Washington State
- Vehicles
- 2010 F-150, 2018 Model 3 P, FS DM Cybertruck
It would take Ford 6 years to re-design the F-150 from the ground up, and that's optimistic. That's not where they are going with this because Farley is not an engineer and doesn't unserstand just how deficient the F-150 is in terms of being over-weight, materials cost and having poor aerodynamics.
The Lightning battery cells are quite power dense, the problem is with the packaging. And re-packaging. They are packaged twice, and they still don't contribute to the trucks core strength, they are just dead weight, including all that packaging. But this is only 5% of the problem.
The real problem is the overall design, you would be hard-pressed to come up with a basic design format that is less aerodynamic than the big, high hood, higher cab with an open bed trailing behind. It just screams "Add more batteries because as soon as you drive me over 50 mph, I need huge amounts of energy to maintain that speed." This drag (and the weight of the heavy body-on-frame construction) is a bigger problem than Farley appears to realize as demonstrated by the fact that the second-generation Lightning will have exactly the same problems.
They don't seem to get that what was acceptable losses on an ICE powertrain costs too much on an electric powertrain. Because the higher kWh requirements entail a heavier battery which then requires additional batteries to make up for the weight of the heavier batteries and this continues in a re-iterating leapfrog. Fortunately, after a few iterations it peters out finally into insignificance, but the initial iterations are already unacceptable in terms of cost because all that extra weight and battery cost doesn't stop there. Now you need a stronger frame, higher capacity shocks and tires, bigger brakes (which again, weigh more) and on and on. And that weight means it needs more batteries and has less payload and towing capacity unless you make the frame heavier and stronger, and on and on.
A rational person can see the answer lies in optimizing every aspect for efficiency, from aero to weight to internal friction losses. But Ford has a culture of thinking small gains are not worth spending time and money on because they fail to see how those small inefficiencies cascade into larger inefficiencies, once all is considered. Of course, GM with their Hummer is the poster child for that kind of thinking, at least Ford tries a little bit, they are just not willing to make the big changes that are required.
All of this could be fixed with a complete re-design, but that's not what is happening because they think it should look like the gas F-150 and the very cost of the re-design would put them even further in the red in terms of their ability to sell it at the cost it took them to make it. Ford is a very inefficient organization and a re-design would probably cost 8-10 times as much as it cost Tesla to design/engineer the Cybertruck and the result would still be inferior.
In the end, the root problem is Ford is only efficient at doing the same thing over and over (and not even very efficient at that). The entire organization has matured around NOT doing things too differently, just a little thing here or there while leveraging the value of the already established designs, principles and protocols. It's built into the corporate culture.
I'm simply speaking plainly and honestly, not bashing them, when I say they are unequipped to do what is required. It may be difficult for someone to understand why they can't just change, but large OEM's are not organisms that have evolved to be adept at that. They have to unlearn what they have progressively become for over a century. That's a lot of baggage and it's more difficult to unlearn something, to turn into a different kind of organism, than to learn something new. That's true with an individual, being a corporation takes it to a whole new level of difficulty. I think people can't appreciate this, it's basically impossible to do in any reasonable timeframe, it's easier to start from scratch.
I'm definitely not rooting for Ford to fail, but I don't see that they are equipped to change quickly enough to save themselves without becoming a ward of the State, something I disagree with as a taxpayer. I believe it's absolutely neccessary for government to let businesses stand or fall on their own merits. I'm not against grants and low interest loans to help foster inovation and productivity, but these tools should never be used on failing businesses in order to prop them up because it corrupts the engines of productivity and disincentivizes excellence.
Sponsored
