2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

I have a TIG welder and a solid state linear amplifier that I'd love to be able to power from my truck instead of from a generator.

What I would like to figure out is if it can actually backfeed the home with 240V split phase power. That would be a seriously big deal if it could, it's not a common generator feature as it is. I'm skeptical, but they did claim it could transition from charging to supplying the house and back to charging when the power returned. Probably some fine print there where they say "only with the 120V charger". Otherwise, that would just be killer. An automatic whole-house UPS that can easily support all your needs for hours or even a couple days in a pinch.

Product launch is when something is released and you can buy it, not when someone published plans and best wishes.

It basically worse and more expensive at everything and its very unlikely Ford can build close to as many as the Cybertruck. Simply because of batteries alone and other production capacity as well (a lot is shared with the other F150s).

Its really slow charging considering the time it will come out. If you want to use this to transport anything its range is worse compared to the Cybertruck and its gone charge much slower.

This will likely sell well and they will likely sell as many as they can make. But that doesn't make it a game changer.

This will sell well but

The hybrid F-150 could already do that.

The frunk makes a big difference for those kinds of things.

That could be a very useful and popular niche, construction sites without power at early phases of construction aren't rare and power tool batteries are expensive.

I haven't seen consumer chargers that are designed to be installed outside. Most people have wall chargers in their garages, but I don't thing this is going to work for the majority of F150 home owners.

That being said, this is an otherwise incredible vehicle. The F150 is pretty much the ultimate vehicle for someone with enough space for one, and this improves upon it in nearly every way.

I have a Mustang Mach e and can't emphasize this enough. It makes tooling around my suburban enclave a pleasure as I go from 0 to 30 mph in a blink.

I entered an on-ramp with a BMW behind me. Honestly, I wasn't trying to make a point, but the BMW swung around me as we entered the highway and it was on. Then it was done. Giggle.

Of course, they'll always cost more than the estimates, plus you get to throw in sales tax and the annual registration tithe to the state.

I'm always surprised that people are willing to spend so much on new vehicles but I guess it keeps the money moving through the economy. The spice must flow.

(BTW: It seems like such an arbitrary and ultimately bad decision to cap rebates by manufacturer. Rebate caps for expensive luxury cars? Sure. But penalize a manufacturer for making _too many_ of the thing you're incentivizing doesn't seem right).

The $50k Cybertruck gets you 300 miles.

Just a preface to say I’m not hating on Ford in particular here, but the msrp is bogus. I can nearly guarantee that the actual base on a vehicle you can actually by will be $10k higher once a dealer is involved.

Edit: side comment, wow 800 plus comments on an F150 hacker news submission. Did not see that coming ;)

It is setting customer expectations and it is competition.

I want an electric truck, but there’s no way in hell I’m trusting my life to Bay Area tech. I want to save money on gas and be more eco friendly. My truck driving for me is not a want until the tech is perfected.

Is it really? I'm looking at an EV for my next car, and not once have I considered Autopilots availability as a musthave feature. Then again, most people who get excited about Autopilot seem to think that driving is a chore that should be removed, while I love driving.

I agree- this is really going to be a big deal, especially with how large the F-150 EV battery is (150kWh). For comparison, the Chevrolet Bolt hatchback has a 66KWh battery with a similar range as the F-150, which makes sense, because the Bolt is much lighter and aerodynamic.

The vast majority of public charging stations in the US ("Level 2") max out at under 10kW; these are great for smaller cars used for commuting to-and-from the office or local shops or whatever. This isn't so bad for the Bolt, but the F-150 will recharge (from a range perspective) much more slowly.

There are very few Level 3 "fast" chargers around. These typically charge at 50kW until the battery is at 80% capacity, then slow down to 10kW or so. Public chargers often charge per minute ($.30 or so), so you get the best bang for the buck to get off the charger once you hit 80%. So, let's say your F-150 is down to 20% capacity, and you need to charge up to 80%. 60% of that 150kWh is battery is 90kWh- that will take nearly two hours ($36) on that fast charger.

I don't think issues 3 and 4 really need to have much to do with electric vehicles. Autopilot and electric are orthogonal properties. The only connection is that they're both pioneered by Tesla. Otherwise there's no particular reason you should expect one with the other. The same goes for over the air software updates.

It just so happens that one of the most popular autopilot implementations is on Tesla, but it could have just as well been implemented on an ICE car.

Agreed. I've been driving a Leaf since 2015 (two different generations by now) and the main reason that makes road trips unpalatable is NOT range. Not at all. Charging more often? Sure, whatever. Unless it's a business trip or a trip across the country it's fine. I've discovered some stuff I'd probably would never have otherwise, by routing via chargers in small towns.

No, the problem is how sparse some quickchargers are, and the fact that many don't even work - and the best you can do is check comments to see if people have complained about them recently. Some of them (specially Nissan owned!) are located in places that _close at night_. That's not acceptable, we can find 24/7 gas stations almost everywhere.

However, that only accounts for 0.1% of my trips. I've optimized for the most common use-case (city driving) and don't regret that one bit.

> If you've ever driven a Tesla on a highway you know you'll not get the full 230 at highspeeds.

Yeap. Same way you won't get good mileage on any car if you do that. Thankfully liquid fuels have a ridiculous amount of energy, so we can afford to waste 70% as heat plus drag and the only real consequence is the wallet (and filling up more often).

US highway speeds are crazy and it is indeed shocking when you see it the first time. It would also be quite shocking on ICE cars too, but they don't have accurate fuel gages, let alone accurate range estimates. At least most don't.

> I wish them all the best with this amazing migration to electric vehicles.

Me too!

Ford is targeting Truck Buyers, not "EV Users", and I can assure you Ford knows Truck Buyers, and i can also Assure you we do not care or even want Autopilot. We love to drive our trucks.

>>No comprehensive supercharger network.

I fully expect Ford to have this solved by the time the first Truck rolls off the line, I could be wrong but Ford has a ton of partnerships and pull. Hell even if the only chargers where at every dealership that would likely rival Telsa's network out of the box. However I fully expect deals to be made likely in concert with other Manufactures over the next 12 mos so I think this will end up being a non-issue

>>Software rollouts. Ford has been working on this but it is still not Solved.

I still not sure how I feel about this "feature", one of the reason I dislike Tesla is their belief they should be allowed to modify the car I supposedly bought from them anytime they want over the air. Treating the car like it was an Apple iPhone (which I also do not own)

Ford has a careful balancing act here. Ford owners want to OWN their truck, not rent it from Ford

I agree that this is important, but it is 99% psychological. In the entire time I owned my Tesla, I used the supercharger a half dozen times. Most people with an EV that has 200+ miles of range will rarely use DC fast chargers.

> autopilot Again, don’t want a half baked marketing-speak technology. Driver assist with sensor driven safety features are all I want. Don’t want extremely intrusive analytics and camera monitoring sure where after any accident the car company CEO would be testing how it was my fault.

Supercharger network is the only thing that will ever make me want to get a Tesla, hopefully other networks will soon be sufficient.

Yes, Ford dealerships and in fact all dealerships can be shady, but for other cars I generally don’t have to deal with them once the warranty is over. With Tesla I’ll have to deal with the company for the life of my car.

Autopilot (as in ADAS Level 3) is and always will be vaporware on existing Teslas. Meanwhile my 2016 Civic has the same type of ADAS Level 2 driver assist. It's not quite as fancy as Tesla's version but it's 90% of what I need. I think for 90% of buyers, anything that does ADAS level 2 is fine.

Yes. I considered CarPlay a must-have feature, but no EVs out there matched the Supercharger network, which led to a Tesla purchase.

>4. No Autopilot.

Tesla is definitely overselling this. The only real time I've used Autopilot for an extended period of time was driving I-5 from SF to/from LA, and other ICE cars accomplish this too.

Minivan...yes. SUV yes. Work truck, not likely.

If people have the occasional need to drive cross country, just rent a gas vehicle till the infrastructure is there. Till then it's just fear mongering causes a slower adoption of EV, which means a slower rollout of a national network.

The big pro of Ford's system is that on some highways/freeways the cruise control is actually hands free. IIRC Teslas have torque sensors in the steering wheel to make sure that your hands don't wander.

Why are companies not putting out electric gas hybrids that use a tuned generator as a backup source of energy like the Chevy Volt did? (I suspect then the vehicle wouldn't qualify for subsidies)

It's crazy to me, as it adds maybe 300 lbs to the vehicle and provides all the benefits of electric, but with the potential range of gas.

I find electric vehicles as a technology highly appealing, but current offerings atrocious. I want a privacy (crazy I even have to say this) respecting electric vehicle with a backup gas charging generator.

This truck would be ideal to _me_ if it met those two criterion, but as is it's a no go. I may just have to build my own someday. :sigh:

That's Autopilot like anyone else has, it's just not marketed as autopilot.

Anyway, I don't care about Effonefittys, I want an 8 passenger Autopilot vehicle that I can buy used.

If you have a small cabin with no a/c, wood heat, and a propane stove - your house is going to use hardly any power compared to your truck. It would barely make a difference.

But I need an HD truck, and it has to have enough range to tow, which means I'm not in the market for a Lightning. Dammit.

I'm confident they currently hold the upper hand on both fronts right now and for the next couple of years most likely. I am not at all confident that they can hold onto either advantage much longer than that.

I just don't agree with the theory.

https://i.imgur.com/Lw4GgNW.jpeg

Go to 10:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4n5iPqxpaw

https://www.google.com/search?q=2020+mustang+mach+e+interior

In my humble opinion, It's superior to touch screen experiences, at least while driving the vehicle. That said, dedicated knobs (such as a knob for a/c) are still the best for some things.

https://www.indra.co.uk/

Based on utility, most minivans beat all SUVs in tasks not involving going off-road. Minivans definitely beat pickup trucks for moving people, and often for moving stuff -- but not always.

Purchasing a vehicle in the USA is only partially based on function, for most people. Price and culture figure in a lot more.

Much less futzing w/ the truck I'm sure.

The initial models have a far smaller packs than the F150, however, given that most of these will be for business use locally, not distance hauling. If Ford were to make a model of the transit with a large pack, you'd have the much larger bed space along with towing. This would likely be a hit with the van-life community.

Length. The size of trailer you can pull behind a tow vehicle is very dependent on the stability of the tow vehicle, and a lot of that comes down to wheelbase. As long as people want to tow 30+ foot long RVs, they will have to have tow vehicles the size of HD pickups.

It pains me. They are cool. Anyone who thinks they aren’t needs to test drive a Chrysler Pacifica with powered stow-and-go seats.

I am hoping that the E-transit is a sleeper hit and I can someday pick it up in a nice passenger configuration.

I suspect the first is rarely used. The second is paraded as a feature, for reasons which escape me.

The problem is that an EV is so inherently efficient to begin with that towing a big hollow brick behind you makes a tremendous difference in how much fuel it takes to pull it. Contrast that with a pickup that is already getting mid-teens fuel economy, the change in efficiency is much less pronounced. And with the easy filling ability of the ICE pickup, it's going to be the go-to choice for a number of years until batteries get significantly more capacity, denser, and cheaper.

A very typical pickup/travel trailer combo will get 10mpg. Maybe a couple more for a diesel. You can find outliers, but I've been towing RVs for a while and the topic comes up for discussion periodically, 10mpg is by far the most common experience. Trying to cram enough capacity into a battery for this kind of terrible efficiency is going to be tough for a while.

I can't imagine that the F150 would be good for long haul trailers... just so much energy involved moving weight around.

Batteries are always the bottleneck. Ford announced a 60GWh plant partnership, but that will only hold them over for several years of growth and is still a ways away from actually producing cells.

Sales will be driven by the same factors as Tesla’s, no c02 emissions, don’t have to buy gas. Everything else is bonus

Scrolling through the page, it's the second "feature" that they advertise (first being that it's "gass-free"). It gets higher placement than the "Power your home" capability, and much higher placement than the "Frunk" (in fact, if I just scroll, the "frunk" doesn't show up until about 2/3 of the way down the page!)

Tesla seems to do okay convincing people to accept OTA updates.

Also, current F150s can do OTA updates, they're just rare.

Yes, absolutely.

That being said, the F-150 will be a lot worse than the Y. It only supports 150kWh charging instead of Tesla's 250kWh, it uses a lot more watts per mile, and it doesn't have access to Tesla's Supercharger network.

We can always charge _and_ take bathroom/lunch breaks (~1 hour). By the time we get back the car's back up to 80~90%.

I'm not sure how much of that is streamlining production versus design (i.e. fitting all the batteries in place may more or less necessitate that specific body style)

... well, unless you actually back it into the lake on the boat ramp! Hmm..

Can you at least disable the OTA updates if you don't want it?

cyber truck is for affluent city people who probably never had or wanted a truck before but like the design.

f150 is more for normal people who actually just want a normal truck that’s electric

- can carry X tons / X petaflops and ai engine! - can drive up to Y hours / last Y hours

but never mention how long is Y with X being true.

https://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/e-transit/2022/

Having your EV plugged in and just "work" when there's a power outage is stupid simple and absolutely worth it.

One, we don't know the actual usable capacity of the pack, because Ford hasn't said. Forbes writer estimates 110-130kWh.

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/2022-ford-f-150-lightning...

Estimating home energy use per day really depends on how much heating/air conditioning you need, if your heater is gas powered or not. The fridge is like 1kWh per day. So... 100 days of just the fridge.

Mid-sized gas furnace will pull about 600W to run the forced air fan. So... 0.6 kWh per hour of runtime. You'd have to calculate the runtime given a temperature. If it is an electric furnace it'll blow through that battery quite fast.

Lights are now peanuts, because LED bulbs are about 8-10W. .12kWh per bulb per day for 12 hours of use.

Also, compare your home's electric bill for a kWh number to compare: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

Average of 877kWh per month. Of course this is averaged as you use more power depending on local weather and time of year due to heating/cooling needs. With that over-averaged value, 3.75 days to drain the battery. This is probably why Ford says about 3 days and then says "10 with conservation".

So I'd say if a family really conserved on heating/cooling, and attempted to be careful with cooking, that battery could quite easily go 10 days.

― Henry Ford

The people answering your survey probably weren't aware they could power an entire jobsite with just a truck. Killer features such as this will be how electric vehicles penetrate the holdouts.

Their marketing team must be based in So Cal and unaware of the use case. /s

I understand they did not integrate the motors and batteries into a new frame built specifically to accommodate them like Tesla did but rather added them on top the existing frame. I really like that Tesla is a ground up design and something about this F150 annoys me for carrying on all of the institutional inertia of a 100 year old company.

Also, I read Ford is planning on 40k of these and their Transit van each year and marketing them toward fleets.

Here's a picture: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dTXcXTNslbGIJam0Wy9BRhk_I80=...

During the live presentation, I believe it was indicated the sub $40k price tag is before the rebate.

* All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving a lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old F150 in a moose (or child!) test.

* The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important requirement in road safety standards.

* The electric motors are able to respond with torque far faster (in ms) than an ICE engine, so traction and stability control are more effective. Again good for things like the moose test.

* Switching our road transport to electric will probably save more children, and the adults they will become, from a lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution than better pedestrian safety features ever will.

I think more worrisome is the center console - pedestrian deaths had been going down for 20 years until smartphones became widespread and we've had increases every year since.

But newer vehicles also have AEB with pedestrian detection. If these vehicles displace older existing vehicles without those safety systems we will see fewer fatalities overall. Most kids and pedestrians are hit at low speed, not at 60+ mph due to the driver not paying attention or not being able to see the pedestrian. While AEB can’t save all pedestrians that would otherwise be hit, we know that these systems lead to big reductions in preventable accidents [1].

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31381447/

The F-150 is already a bloated monstrosity, it makes no difference if it’s electric. It’s some tiny bit faster, but they’re all fast enough.

An EV truck presumably can be any size, but there's no current small truck platform to build on.

"Compared with cars, buses were 11.85 times and motorcycles were 3.77 times more likely per mile to kill children 0–14 years old. Buses were 16.70 times more likely to kill adults age 85 or older than were cars."

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232

I’m not sure how much the weight really matters if you’re colliding with a cyclist or pedestrian anyway though.

Valid point about the height, but it’s no different than any other modern truck on the road today (all of which are too high if you ask me).

If you get hit by any vehicle you're going to have a bad time. This vehicle is not an exception.

Instead, they kept the high nose and used the space as a trunk. After all, injuring fewer pedestrians sells no cars. Indeed, the market prefers an enormous, deliberately threatening-looking chariot that makes you feel big and virile.

Ford are behind this game in that they haven't given their truck an explicitly hostile name like “People Mulcher”.

The trend that they need to be an everyday vehicle for anyone is something that should be looked at. What is the psychology and intentional planning that's caused this shift? What subtle population engineering has lead to this without people realizing it?

The reason an entire car hide in front of the bumper, out of the driver's view is that it makes the truck look cooler. The window sills are also at a silly height, to make the truck feel bigger, but at least that doesn't create the same safety issues (for everyone outside the truck) with no real value.

Ford's marketing department knows what they're doing, they're marketing this truck as tough and powerful. I like it.

My concern with the Lightning (and EVs in general) is range anxiety. I can fill up my F150 in what 3-4 minutes. How long before I can go 400 miles on a charge? What happens during an extended power outage, can I carry 100 miles worth of range in a portable container that's as easy to handle as 5 gallons of gas?

None of these concerns have anything to do with this vehicle making me feel more manly ;)

Those are weasel words unless you can back them up with data. Ford sells over a million pickups a year, and they're just a third of that market. There's no way to get an audience this large by going for machismo, pickups sell because they have broad appeal.

If the world turns Mad Max, someone with an electric truck and a few solar panels won't have to worry about the gasoline gangs.

So while there might be pushback from the "salt of the earth"-type, I suspect a lot of urban truck owners are very far removed from that. The gas/long bed/bench seat base model may continue to sell for the rest of my life to farmers and construction crews, but most people buying a truck likely don't need a truck: It is just a utilitarian general vehicle that may haul gardening supplies, camping gear, and dump runs every so often.

So you likely are correct, it just may not matter for the more common demography for trucks in 2021+.

That helps with the overcompensation buyer.

We buy a freezer at Costco. Checking out, we ask for details on delivery. Costco employee says "Oh, we don't deliver". We had been used to Costco in CA which at the time would deliver large items.

I ask "Well, how do people get big things like freezers home".

Costco person says "Easy, just put it in your pickup, we'll help you load".

"Hmm...we don't own a pickup".

Costco employee looks somewhat confused.

Then says "Easy, just get your neighbor's pickup".

The next week we bought a pickup.

I got a rental car recently and they gave me a bright red pickup because it was the fastest option. I was surprised by the good vibes I got from all the other pickup drivers, lol. It's like I got inducted into a secret club for a day with a lot of waves and thumbs up. A woman went up to my group in a parking lot and said something like "Hell yeah, you guys look like you're having fun."

And I thought, yeah -- I fucking love this. Kinda subverted my perspective on the aesthetics of these trucks and the people who drive them. Led to some self-awareness about how silly the city stereotypes are of such people.

A lot of people around here have big, tall pickups with tiny beds that they drive very aggressively. They rarely use them for anything I couldn't put in my Fit (I've known several people who would never haul dirt or the like because they don't want the truck to get dirty). Many modern pickups have a high front grill that is dangerous for pedestrians and designed to be intimidating. It sucks to constantly run into trucks like that being driving fast and aggressively when I'm just trying to walk to the store.

I know that's a minority of trucks, but the worst cars by me are invariably pickups and it's hard not to generalize it.

When a vehicle is driving in front of my house with a grill that's a foot higher than my oldest child... yeah, I don't much like those aesthetics. And it has nothing to do with "moving stuff". The UPS delivery vans that are actually built to, ya know, move stuff, have lower grills and way safer sight lines.

But then again, I do notice (and sometimes make fun) if they've got a lift kit on it, tow mirrors when I've never seen them tow anything, big roof mounted light bar, etc. So maybe it's just a matter of degree as to where you draw the line and make stop-liking-what-I-don't-like judgements.

If you live in an apartment complex it's ridiculous to have a truck.

But Even if you own just a reasonable suburban house with a small amount of land you need to do a lot of dirty truck type jobs every year.

I only have half an acre of land, but due to tons of trees I have yard work every year that causes me to have to do many many trips to the compost center with my car (Outback) that could probably be accomplished in one trip if I had a truck.

And almost without fail every year I have times where I have to make multiple trips so that I don't overload the cargo capacity of the car. Even a gas F-150 would use less gas to make these trips and save CO2.

I couldn't see driving an F-150 to work solo commuting with gas as something I could ever stomach, I hate that my Subaru barely gets 20mpg doing that.

But with electric I could see it. The ultimate joke would be someone driving a CUV that burns gas or even a hybrid and trying to virtue signal over someone with an electric pickup truck.

Do I want to spend $50k on a Tesla Model Y and put yard waste inside it's luxury interior on a semi-regular basis? I'm not sure. Versus destroying a luxury EV an F-150 looks pretty cool.

Bottom line you live in an apartment you don't need one of these, because you're paying someone else with a truck to take care of you. When you have to maintain property yourself you either start paying a contractor with a truck to do things for you or you start doing it yourself. When you do it yourself you start going down the slippery slope to wanting a truck.

It's kind of ridiculous, really. You know who buys F150s? Everyone. If there were a stereotypical "truck owner" then Ford wouldn't sell better than a million of these every year. They have broad appeal to diverse demographics.

On top of the landscaping and project work I use it for, it's perfect for going dispersed camping in rough areas that need high clearance. I would never be comfortable risking a rental for such activities.

Trucks get shitty gas mileage and potentially cause more wear and tear on the public roads, and are definitely not good for the environment.

IMO - Trucks should be taxed accordingly - if you are a farmer or work in construction you get a tax break, if you just want a truck to have one, it's gonna cost you.

Not to mention that the cybertruck has nearly the same dimensions as the f150 (https://youtu.be/sLvopc9oI4A?t=199) and has a shape that is more likely to cut you in half if it were to hit you. It also has a payload that's more comparable with a ford super duty and will likely weight more than the lightning to support that.

There are obviously many cases where a truck of some kind is exactly what you need to do some task or other.

I think it's more like there are a bunch of people who have never owned a pickup truck, and have rented trucks when they needed to "move stuff", and are suspicious of the explanation given by others about why they bought them because those explanations don't match their own life experience.

If the answer to "why did you buy a pickup truck?" was "I like to see past the other traffic, I'm worried about the safety implications of a smaller vehicle when there are so many pickup trucks on the road where I live, the infrastructure here is set up for them with wide roads and ample parking so it's not really a thing, plus I very occasionally avoid needing to rent a truck when moving lumber" then things would be less contentious.

Of course, one can then proceed to the question of if there's a double-standard on why the question doesn't get asked to owners of sports cars with speed and handling limits that are of no relevance to public roads.

What doesn't make sense to me is when someone who drives any gas car judges someone who drives a truck. Do they feel validated in their choices because someone made worse choices? Or do they decide that 30mpg is such a morally superior position than 20mpg that they have the right to judge others?

In the suburban environment where I live, the majority of pickup trucks are effectively commuter cars. They haul their owners' asses to a cubicle farm and back home again. These are people who fully buy into the stereotype and have bought a truck so they can purchase their masculinity on a monthly payment plan.

In reality the average is 2 out of 100 trucks carried anything in my counting. The highest I have seen in Los Angeles with 6 trucks carrying something.

That makes me believe that when you own a pickup truck, there is a small change of needing its large bed and powerful engine.

It maybe like gaming ready computer, swimming pools or fireplaces - usage is very low for most people, but you just might need it urgently someday. Or you think you might change your habits if you buy it

For me it's the increasingly large size of all trucks which have made them hugely inconvenient, and frankly dangerous, to circumnavigate. You know how you feel when you get boxed in by a couple tractor trailers on the freeway? That's how everyone else in reasonably sized vehicles feels driving around your truck. There are way more blind spots involving the modern truck compared to other cars which present a danger to everyone else on the road, I don't care what kind of whizz-bang "safety" cameras you have. And you also create blind spots for everyone else who can't see around your absurdly bloated truck in places like parking lots and passing lanes.

It's a safety and practicality issue which goes beyond the "you don't need that" mentality, there's legitimate reasons for people to NOT like them.

The first thing I did when moving to a rural area was to get a F-150. I plow my own driveway. I pick up dirt by the yard for lawn/garden use. Tow. Get big things. I look back now three years later and am thankful I did not waste any coin on a bed cover as I'd be very tired of putting it on and taking it off. Living nearly two miles in on a dirt road I only bother washing the truck twice a year as 'clean' is very fleeting.

The issue with this e-F150 is the low payload and tow capacity of the standard models. Think I'm rated 2350 payload and 13K tow on an out the door $44k XLT supercab.

The vehicles are gigantic and are capable of carrying thousands of pounds but are operated by people who may not be able to handle something considerably smaller without getting into an accident. Suburban neighborhoods are plagued with tailgating road warriors in consumer tanks that endanger people for the sake of having an adventure on the road. The aesthetics of a truck are as much a problem as the drivers operating them.

Truck owners don't just use them to carry rocks and trees, they also drive them to the city, where the high grille, large footprint, crazy rate of acceleration make them threatening, dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, and frankly just detrimental to improving the quality of life in cities.

It's absolutely rational that a vehicle optimized for rural workload isn't going to be ideal in cities.

What's irrational is pretending they have to be taller and wider every year.

I suspect most people with big trucks rarely use them for moving stuff. Not to say they never do, but from my observations owning a big truck has a lot more to do with signaling a certain status to others who value big trucks.

Pro-Tesla, ftfy.

No, I am not a Trump flag flyer. I just happen to really like useful vehicles.

Problem solved.

Yet the top comment is a reflexive jab at those woke folks with zero content about the truck in question. That's very much on brand for HN.

Now for the tongue in cheek ironic part of the post Finally had to just stop visiting sites like Jalopnik(a car site written by people who hate cars), TTAC(used to just be the right leaning car website, but now is having Jalopnik envy), and The Drive(A new car site by the guy who started Jalopnik and decided only one toxic car site attributed to him was not enough).

[0]https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232

Sure, "transparent" pricing that can change on a whim, even after you've purchased the product. "Take-it-or-leave-it" delivery if you find flaws with your car.

>Step three is me checking on the cyber truck status.

Let me know when you take delivery of a Cybertruck for <40k, similar pricing to the Model 3, like the "transparent info" claims.

TSLA literally lies about the cost of the car on their website though.

"* Costs above include potential incentives and gas savings of $4,300."

Gas savings... What? This isn't some special tax credit you get, they lie about their pricing by including savings over time of ownership...

I can't recommend enough just how refreshing it is to go to a no-haggle dealership after having experienced a regular dealership.

The wife and I walked into the dealership, test drove a vehicle, and walked out with the signed proof-of-sale in just over an hour.

Obviously, you're not getting THE BEST price, but the no-haggles in our area handily beat the prices of every single neighbouring dealership by a heck of a lot more than I think I'd be able to beat them down to.

Last time I bought a car it took probably close to 6-8 hours of back-and-forth, telephone game with the manager, and I still felt like I got ripped off. Never again.

https://ibb.co/TgKvP2g

But of course Ford is even worse here but not in the dealership rating (which I of course can't find atm. as it were in last months issue)..