F-150 Lighting EV Cancelled. To be Replaced by EREV Hybrid Lightning

[henchman24]

Why is that a problem? Aren't ICE engines running the entire time?? Generator engines are designed to run continuously.

As long as it is sized appropriately and not stressed to a high degree, cooling is the only significant reliability issue. If they undersize it wit say a ~150hp 4 cylinder, that engine will be extremely stressed. With a ~450hp V8, that engine will pretty much last forever.

IMO it is all a complexity issue though. Making an extremely complex vehicle for a very narrow use case. Where the automakers proposing this have very poor results at pulling off this level of complexity. The theory of this powertrain is basically the same as modern freight locomotives in the US (just with a battery).

Sponsored

 

[mongo]

No. But I would be excited if Tesla decided to open up the existing range extender hardware to after-market. We know the truck is wired for it. Let after-market develop the range extenders whether more battery, gas, hydrogen, or squirrels it would enable some really cool upgrades.

The truck wasn't wired for it. The only extra HV port was a lower power one for the canceled inductive charger (unless the plan was to not Supercharge the extender).

For regular heaving towing use, EREVs have a serious problem. mainly the engine/generator is working hard the entire time. For the same reason, heavy towing is not ideal with the new breed of small "eco-tech" engines.

For that niche use, a diesel or gas engine is better than a EREV, and not nearly as complex or expensive. There are huge inefficiencies with burning gas or diesel in a small engine to generate electricity to run an electric motor.

Why would the engine be working hard the entire time? If in range mode it is only conversion loss higher output than direct drive (which lack of transmission offsets). If charging the pack, then it gets shut off after hitting the upper SOC.
1600 Wh/mile at 60 MPH is 100kW 125hp.

A more viable solution is a pure EV truck, as long as the charging opportunities have good geographical density, good power, and are set up for trailers without unhitching. That will be the winning solution in time for the niche use of light truck long-distance towing. Tesla could fix this in one year simply by building a proliferation of true version 4 Superchargers set up for towing but the demand is too little to make it a top priority.

Big batteries are not the answer for light truck towing, fast, convenient charging is.

Fast charging means low peak SOC, say 80%. Safely buffer of 10%. So only 70% of pack is available. CT is 123kWh * 0.7 = 86kWh
My trailer averaged 1200Wh/mile on half highway half two lane. That's 72 miles. So one hour driving followed by 20 minutes of charging.

Double the pack, now it's 5% (same range) to 80% for 185kWh available. At 1.2 kW/mile 153 miles or 2.5 hours driving followed by 20 minutes charging. Or two hours closer to highway speeds.

 

[freddms]

Tesla killed our extended range battery, and I know that they will never produce a ice generator, but they should work with somebody else who will if they could fix the cybertruck range problem (that some people want to pretend doesn't exist) it would be absolutely unstoppable.

If you are pulling boats/trailers yes. It's a problem. Otherwise I'm curious of your view.

Just came across Wyoming a few weeks back in sub zero temps and 70MPH wind gusts. Range was 180 charged to 80% - over 200 if I needed it (with longer charge time). But to your point, glad I did not have a trailer.

 

[HaulingAss]

Why is that a problem? Aren't ICE engines running the entire time?? Generator engines are designed to run continuously.

There are a lot of reasons that I don't care to go into in-depth on a Cybertruck forum. Certainly, heavy-duty engines can be designed and built to run hard continuously, the problem is the cost/weight/longevity/maintenance considerations with such engine designs. It's just not well-suited to a light truck that has to be sold at a relatively low price point. Especially when that same engine needs to be mated to batteries, inverters, electric motors, etc. It gets complicated and uncompetitive really quickly. Make it at a competitive price point and it has longevity/reliability concerns, exactly what people don't want when they buy a truck for extended towing.

 

[dalton108]

As long as it is sized appropriately and not stressed to a high degree, cooling is the only significant reliability issue. If they undersize it wit say a ~150hp 4 cylinder, that engine will be extremely stressed. With a ~450hp V8, that engine will pretty much last forever.

IMO it is all a complexity issue though. Making an extremely complex vehicle for a very narrow use case. Where the automakers proposing this have very poor results at pulling off this level of complexity. The theory of this powertrain is basically the same as modern freight locomotives in the US (just with a battery).

Driving long distances in America (especially the Southwest and West) is not a narrow use case. It’s literally what we do. We have thousands and thousands of miles of road both paved and unpaved with no people or infrastructure around.

This assertion was wrong at the outset and it remains wrong now. The only difference is the proof is now in the pudding.

 

[HaulingAss]

Why would the engine be working hard the entire time? If in range mode it is only conversion loss higher output than direct drive (which lack of transmission offsets). If charging the pack, then it gets shut off after hitting the upper SOC.
1600 Wh/mile at 60 MPH is 100kW 125hp.

Because we were talking about using a smaller, more efficient engine for towing purposes. Yes, it wouldn't be working hard 100% of the time, obviously, but it would have a hard life.

I get your point, but the added complexity is the nail in the coffin (in terms of cost per mile and reliability/longevity). This is a case where there is no overall benefit, all things considered. Sure, you can advertise a slightly higher MPG, so what? It doesn't make it cheaper to buy or operate overall.

 

[dalton108]

If you are pulling boats/trailers yes. It's a problem. Otherwise I'm curious of your view.

Just came across Wyoming a few weeks back in sub zero temps and 70MPH wind gusts. Range was 180 charged to 80% - over 200 if I needed it (with longer charge time). But to your point, glad I did not have a trailer.

Well yes. If you’re boondocking in your Cybertruck you’re either going to attach something to the top of it or be pulling something behind it.

And while I respect Wyoming for it’s beautiful scenery you guys have speed limit limits from the turn of the century. Where I live to get to you or any anywhere else I want to be out in the back country I’ve got to get through large stretches of freeway where the speed limit is 80 and the average speed of vehicles is 90 (that’s including big trucks and vehicle vehicles that are towing).

This is not theoretical; it’s a non-starter. With my trailer (which is not an occasional use case scenario for me) in my Cyberbeast with the itinerant circumstances described above I have absolutely no confidence that I can travel more than 110 miles— maximum.

 

[henchman24]

Driving long distances in America (especially the Southwest and West) is not a narrow use case. It’s literally what we do. We have thousands and thousands of miles of road both paved and unpaved with no people or infrastructure around.

This assertion was wrong at the outset and it remains wrong now. The only difference is the proof is now in the pudding.

I live in the West (Colorado and Wyoming) and make a ~450 mile trip at least every other week to a remote area. That distance, without a trailer, is extremely easy to do now with the current range and charging infrastructure. 700 mi theoretical range just isn't needed and all the downsides would crop up very quickly.

Now towing a trailer all the time while doing that, would be especially cumbersome with the current range and infrastructure. One only solved by capacity and faster replenishment. The amount needed is so much that only a diesel truck with a very large tank is really a viable solution for that much. An EREV simply isn't the answer to this, a diesel truck is.

 

[HaulingAss]

The theory of this powertrain is basically the same as modern freight locomotives in the US (just with a battery).

Good point, except for the fact that the needs of a freight locomotive are so far removed from towing a 10,000 lb. trailer that the concept does not scale down well. It's not needed like it is in a locomotive.

 

[Pops]

So, it's a false narrative that the trucks needed a longer range, what they needed was a lower cost, something not compatible with big batteries.

I agree with almost everything you said, except the last part. More range is needed for EV trucks to be a success. While the data shows sales have gone to the cheaper vehicles, the data also shows EV truck sales pale in comparison to gas trucks. This is because gas trucks are cheap AND have range. Range is the missing piece of the puzzle for EV trucks.

 

[dalton108]

I live in the West (Colorado and Wyoming) and make a ~450 mile trip at least every other week to a remote area. That distance, without a trailer, is extremely easy to do now with the current range and charging infrastructure. 700 mi theoretical range just isn't needed and all the downsides would crop up very quickly.

Now towing a trailer all the time while doing that, would be especially cumbersome with the current range and infrastructure. One only solved by capacity and faster replenishment. The amount needed is so much that only a diesel truck with a very large tank is really a viable solution for that much. An EREV simply isn't the answer to this, a diesel truck is.

Plot me a course from Las Vegas, NV to Ely Nevada with the range available in a CyberBeast. I’ll wait.

 

[henchman24]

Well yes. If you’re boondocking in your Cybertruck you’re either going to attach something to the top of it or be pulling something behind it.

And while I respect Wyoming for it’s beautiful scenery you guys have speed limit limits from the term of the century. Where I live to get to you or any anywhere else I want to be out in the back country I’ve got to get through large stretches a freeway where the speed limit is 80 and the average speed of vehicles is 90 that’s including big trucks and vehicle vehicles that are towing.

This is not theoretical; it’s a non-starter. With my trailer (which is not an occasional use case scenario for me) in my Cyberbeast with the itinerant circumstances described above I have absolutely no confidence that I can travel more than 110 miles— maximum.

Wyoming has 80mph speed limits on most of the interstates (when the weather isn't terrible).

In your use case, a diesel truck is likely a much better option.

 

[dalton108]

I agree with almost everything you said, except the last part. More range is needed to EV trucks to be a success. While the data shows sales have gone to the cheaper vehicles, the data also shows EV truck sales pale in comparison to gas trucks. This is because gas trucks are cheap AND have range. Range is the missing piece of the puzzle for EV trucks.

Too funny I was going to say the exact same thing. Word for Word of your first two sentences.

 

[dalton108]

Wyoming has 80mph speed limits on most of the interstates (when the weather isn't terrible).

In your use case, a diesel truck is likely a much better option.

I’ve never owned a diesel, nor will I ever. In my use case, my preordered Scout Harvester is going to be the better option. Until then, my Cybertruck remains insufficient and my FJ Cruiser will have to do.

 

[henchman24]

Plot me a course from Las Vegas, NV to Ely Nevada with the range available in a Cyber Beast. I’ll wait.

Per ABRP, you can make that trip with 67% battery. I've done Colorado City to Durango without a charge... similar mileage, crossing mountains, and high speeds.

Sponsored