I don't know if rural Colorado counts as "the heartland", but the reaction of Janel's construction coworkers to her Tesla have been really positive. The most common comment was "when they make an electric F150, I'm in". Not because of the badge, but because that is the definition of the Standard Pickup Truck and a four door sedan on weird wheels is not.
Driven5 said:mattm said:I agree that Ford's approach is getting them to market in advance of the Chevy, but even Ford has indicated that this platform is a dead end.
The F150 platform for the Lightning being a dead end really doesn't hurt it (or Ford) at all though. It gets the product to market sooner in a package that is more appealing to the masses that are naturally resistant to change. Then once established it can change over to a new better suited EV platform once the larger market is ready for that next evolution.
GM is either betting on a creating a sudden seismic shift in the market, or targeting it as more of a niche vehicle than the Lightning. Crossbreeding a low sales volume new product with a low sales volume old product is an extremely risky gamble if the goal is creating a high sales volume new product.
I would say creating a platform that is essentially a one off and will be replaced quickly, costs more than building the correct architecture from the beginning. I would say that the approach Ford took requires more people and time to build vs something like the skateboard type that Tesla went to market with in 2012, to say nothing of the high volume model 3 platform that went into production in 2017. That is the platform that Diess is worried about when he references the 10 hour build time target that Tesla has set for the German plant. Remember it takes VW 30 hours to build the ID.3 or 4 with a hope to bring that down to 20 within a year.
The costs of the batteries right now are such that saving money in production is hugely important to making EVs financially viable along with efficiency. The importance will lessen over time as the cost of batteries comes down.
Gearheadotaku (Forum Supporter) said:Ive never been a fan of the midgate idea. Just one more moving part to leak and rattle plus weakening the cab.
Having that open on a cold wet day must be a joy as rain and snow blow
into the cab when you are trying move something big. Not to mention the debris that will have to be carfully cleaned up before it ruins the seats and carpet.
If I am reading the graphic right, the bed is nearly 6' with the gates closed. Better than I thought. The buttress styling makes it look smaller.
I don't think I've ever touched an Avalanche but it's my understanding that the Avalanche offered a hard bed cover, and the midgate could be dropped with the rear window in place. So it was possible to drop the midgate and have the cab/bed space remain weather tight. So if you needed to haul something long and tall, you could leave the midgate up and drop the tailgate. If you didn't need all of that height, and wanted to keep it weather tight, you'd just drop the midgate.
I don't see a hard cover in the press photos for the silverado, but they seem like they wanted to show off the bed/mid gate. A hard cover seems pretty easy to add. It does seem like the midgate can be dropped with the rear window in place. There's also a cap that seems like it would more or less turn this truck into an electric cargo van with 9ft of weathertight storage space behind the front row when the midgate is down and the rear window removed:
mattm said:Driven5 said:mattm said:I agree that Ford's approach is getting them to market in advance of the Chevy, but even Ford has indicated that this platform is a dead end.
The F150 platform for the Lightning being a dead end really doesn't hurt it (or Ford) at all though. It gets the product to market sooner in a package that is more appealing to the masses that are naturally resistant to change. Then once established it can change over to a new better suited EV platform once the larger market is ready for that next evolution.
GM is either betting on a creating a sudden seismic shift in the market, or targeting it as more of a niche vehicle than the Lightning. Crossbreeding a low sales volume new product with a low sales volume old product is an extremely risky gamble if the goal is creating a high sales volume new product.
I would say creating a platform that is essentially a one off and will be replaced quickly, costs more than building the correct architecture from the beginning. I would say that the approach Ford took requires more people and time to build vs something like the skateboard type that Tesla went to market with in 2012, to say nothing of the high volume model 3 platform that went into production in 2017. That is the platform that Diess is worried about when he references the 10 hour build time target that Tesla has set for the German plant. Remember it takes VW 30 hours to build the ID.3 or 4 with a hope to bring that down to 20 within a year.
The costs of the batteries right now are such that saving money in production is hugely important to making EVs financially viable along with efficiency. The importance will lessen over time as the cost of batteries comes down.
It can be seen as an unnecessary first step, or as practice that allows them to set the market for EV trucks while ramping production and building battery production capacity so they'll be ready to roll with more widespread production (and more profit) when the next gen Lightnings are rolled out in 3-4 years.
The whole concept with the skateboards that all EVs may eventually be based on is building scale and sharing the platform between models because batteries are expensive. That's essential when you're creating new models from the ground up. But the F150 already has that scale and shared platform in place. Instead of building scale for batteries, Ford has more or less taken the opposite approach and used the existing scale for the non EV parts of the truck. The Lightning and regular F150s may not travel down the same assembly line, but they are built in the same Dearborn/Rouge facility as far as I can tell. That's a lot of frames, body panels, windows, seats, control arms, etc all in the same place already, just waiting to be used. By adding batteries to the current F150, they leverage that existing scale to enter into the market with the first EV truck before the competition, continue to gain engineering/manufacturing/supply chain expertise with EVs and batteries, while battery costs just drop into reasonably profitable range. 3 years from now when the next Lightning is expected (and the Chevy here is still likely to be ramping production), Ford will have made a few hundred thousand Lightnings as practice for the big show in 2025 when batteries are cheaper and they can all actually build these things for real profits.
I'm not sure which strategy will be better, but I can see logic in both.
STM317 said:mattm said:Driven5 said:mattm said:I agree that Ford's approach is getting them to market in advance of the Chevy, but even Ford has indicated that this platform is a dead end.
The F150 platform for the Lightning being a dead end really doesn't hurt it (or Ford) at all though. It gets the product to market sooner in a package that is more appealing to the masses that are naturally resistant to change. Then once established it can change over to a new better suited EV platform once the larger market is ready for that next evolution.
GM is either betting on a creating a sudden seismic shift in the market, or targeting it as more of a niche vehicle than the Lightning. Crossbreeding a low sales volume new product with a low sales volume old product is an extremely risky gamble if the goal is creating a high sales volume new product.
I would say creating a platform that is essentially a one off and will be replaced quickly, costs more than building the correct architecture from the beginning. I would say that the approach Ford took requires more people and time to build vs something like the skateboard type that Tesla went to market with in 2012, to say nothing of the high volume model 3 platform that went into production in 2017. That is the platform that Diess is worried about when he references the 10 hour build time target that Tesla has set for the German plant. Remember it takes VW 30 hours to build the ID.3 or 4 with a hope to bring that down to 20 within a year.
The costs of the batteries right now are such that saving money in production is hugely important to making EVs financially viable along with efficiency. The importance will lessen over time as the cost of batteries comes down.
It can be seen as an unnecessary first step, or as practice that allows them to set the market for EV trucks while ramping production and building battery production capacity so they'll be ready to roll with more widespread production (and more profit) when the next gen Lightnings are rolled out in 3-4 years.
The whole concept with the skateboards that all EVs may eventually be based on is building scale and sharing the platform between models because batteries are expensive. That's essential when you're creating new models from the ground up. But the F150 already has that scale and shared platform in place. Instead of building scale for batteries, Ford has more or less taken the opposite approach and used the existing scale for the non EV parts of the truck. The Lightning and regular F150s may not travel down the same assembly line, but they are built in the same Dearborn/Rouge facility as far as I can tell. That's a lot of frames, body panels, windows, seats, control arms, etc all in the same place already, just waiting to be used. By adding batteries to the current F150, they leverage that existing scale to enter into the market with the first EV truck before the competition, continue to gain engineering/manufacturing/supply chain expertise with EVs and batteries, while battery costs just drop into reasonably profitable range. 3 years from now when the next Lightning is expected (and the Chevy here is still likely to be ramping production), Ford will have made a few hundred thousand Lightnings as practice for the big show in 2025 when batteries are cheaper and they can all actually build these things for real profits.
I'm not sure which strategy will be better, but I can see logic in both.
There is certainly logic to both approaches, but I wonder if Ford is relying too much on the muscle they have already built, vs the new one they need to build for EVs. Tesla, being from Silicon Valley, has internalized the lesson of the post mainframe era of computing, where software is the focus, not hardware. Tesla designs the cars so most functions are accomplished with software that they built. Auto headlights and auto high beams, lane departure warning, auto wipers, infotainment, navigation (with reliance on Google maps data,) blind spot warning etc etc. There are solutions for all of those that all of the manufacturers use, and Tesla sees more value in building those features themselves. Ford can buy ready made hardware solutions for these that certainly include software, but developed by a supplier. Software they cannot improve because it doesn't belong to Ford. This is the biggest difference between Tesla and the traditional manufacturers.
Tesla wants to be vertically integrated so that they can control the experience and build solutions that are driven by software. Ford and the rest certainly build software, but are heavily dependent on suppliers to deliver solutions that are dependent upon specific hardware and include software that Ford and the others have minimal control over. See the current chip shortage. Tesla is suffering much less as they have already rewritten firmware for chips that have better existing supply. This vertical integration gives them an advantage, at least at this point in the transition.
In reply to mattm :
I think you're about 5-10 years too late with that concept. Based on what I've seen on the inside of a 5 year old cheap roadster, they're not longer a collection of disparate devices haphazardly stuck together. They're a platform of networked devices that are all controlled over software. Even things like reverse lights and turn indicator flashes are done by an integrated body control module. The tire pressure monitoring can't function without input from the steering rack. The lane departure needs the steering rack and the front camera, which is also used for headlights and sensing speed limits.
Tesla seems to be willing/able to move faster to rewrite software to use different chips, but they also have a less complex vehicle because they're not trying to manage an ICE. And yes, they are famously vertically integrated which is why they have much more control over things like their batteries - something that GM probably envies quite a bit right now.
Keith Tanner said:In reply to mattm :
I think you're about 5-10 years too late with that concept. Based on what I've seen on the inside of a 5 year old cheap roadster, they're not longer a collection of disparate devices haphazardly stuck together. They're a platform of networked devices that are all controlled over software. Even things like reverse lights and turn indicator flashes are done by an integrated body control module. The tire pressure monitoring can't function without input from the steering rack. The lane departure needs the steering rack and the front camera, which is also used for headlights and sensing speed limits.
Tesla seems to be willing/able to move faster to rewrite software to use different chips, but they also have a less complex vehicle because they're not trying to manage an ICE. And yes, they are famously vertically integrated which is why they have much more control over things like their batteries - something that GM probably envies quite a bit right now.
You are certainly closer to it than I am so I would defer to your experience. My exposure to the autos, both new and traditional, comes from the technology side. The significant differences there, along with what I have gleaned from conversations, led me down this path. Let's just say, as an owner of a traditional auto product, the software leaves a lot to be desired compared to the Tesla overall. Certain specific items notwithstanding.
Looks like real trucks don’t have frunks
mattm said:Let's just say, as an owner of a traditional auto product, the software leaves a lot to be desired compared to the Tesla overall. Certain specific items notwithstanding.
There are some products where beta testing new software features pushed out over the network with zero notice may be a cool thing, but IMHO cars are not one of them.
mattm said:STM317 said:mattm said:Driven5 said:mattm said:I agree that Ford's approach is getting them to market in advance of the Chevy, but even Ford has indicated that this platform is a dead end.
The F150 platform for the Lightning being a dead end really doesn't hurt it (or Ford) at all though. It gets the product to market sooner in a package that is more appealing to the masses that are naturally resistant to change. Then once established it can change over to a new better suited EV platform once the larger market is ready for that next evolution.
GM is either betting on a creating a sudden seismic shift in the market, or targeting it as more of a niche vehicle than the Lightning. Crossbreeding a low sales volume new product with a low sales volume old product is an extremely risky gamble if the goal is creating a high sales volume new product.
I would say creating a platform that is essentially a one off and will be replaced quickly, costs more than building the correct architecture from the beginning. I would say that the approach Ford took requires more people and time to build vs something like the skateboard type that Tesla went to market with in 2012, to say nothing of the high volume model 3 platform that went into production in 2017. That is the platform that Diess is worried about when he references the 10 hour build time target that Tesla has set for the German plant. Remember it takes VW 30 hours to build the ID.3 or 4 with a hope to bring that down to 20 within a year.
The costs of the batteries right now are such that saving money in production is hugely important to making EVs financially viable along with efficiency. The importance will lessen over time as the cost of batteries comes down.
It can be seen as an unnecessary first step, or as practice that allows them to set the market for EV trucks while ramping production and building battery production capacity so they'll be ready to roll with more widespread production (and more profit) when the next gen Lightnings are rolled out in 3-4 years.
The whole concept with the skateboards that all EVs may eventually be based on is building scale and sharing the platform between models because batteries are expensive. That's essential when you're creating new models from the ground up. But the F150 already has that scale and shared platform in place. Instead of building scale for batteries, Ford has more or less taken the opposite approach and used the existing scale for the non EV parts of the truck. The Lightning and regular F150s may not travel down the same assembly line, but they are built in the same Dearborn/Rouge facility as far as I can tell. That's a lot of frames, body panels, windows, seats, control arms, etc all in the same place already, just waiting to be used. By adding batteries to the current F150, they leverage that existing scale to enter into the market with the first EV truck before the competition, continue to gain engineering/manufacturing/supply chain expertise with EVs and batteries, while battery costs just drop into reasonably profitable range. 3 years from now when the next Lightning is expected (and the Chevy here is still likely to be ramping production), Ford will have made a few hundred thousand Lightnings as practice for the big show in 2025 when batteries are cheaper and they can all actually build these things for real profits.
I'm not sure which strategy will be better, but I can see logic in both.
There is certainly logic to both approaches, but I wonder if Ford is relying too much on the muscle they have already built, vs the new one they need to build for EVs. Tesla, being from Silicon Valley, has internalized the lesson of the post mainframe era of computing, where software is the focus, not hardware. Tesla designs the cars so most functions are accomplished with software that they built. Auto headlights and auto high beams, lane departure warning, auto wipers, infotainment, navigation (with reliance on Google maps data,) blind spot warning etc etc. There are solutions for all of those that all of the manufacturers use, and Tesla sees more value in building those features themselves. Ford can buy ready made hardware solutions for these that certainly include software, but developed by a supplier. Software they cannot improve because it doesn't belong to Ford. This is the biggest difference between Tesla and the traditional manufacturers.
Tesla wants to be vertically integrated so that they can control the experience and build solutions that are driven by software. Ford and the rest certainly build software, but are heavily dependent on suppliers to deliver solutions that are dependent upon specific hardware and include software that Ford and the others have minimal control over. See the current chip shortage. Tesla is suffering much less as they have already rewritten firmware for chips that have better existing supply. This vertical integration gives them an advantage, at least at this point in the transition.
I don't think Ford (or any legacy OEM besides maybe VW) has the battery production capacity at the moment to take advantage of the scale benefits of a more universal pack design. That's still a couple of years out. That's why most OEMs have a bevy of EVs planned for release around 2025. The specialized design of the Lightning is a bridge to that time. It's practice for the company to get ready for the big show by 2025, and it lets their customers get used to the idea of EVs in markets that might not have had them yet.
Teslas vertical integration and in house software development have helped them. But they also need far fewer chips too. They sold less than 1 million vehicles worldwide in 2021. Ford sold more than twice that number in the US alone. With heavy cuts to production. It's a lot easier to find chips for 900k vehicles than it is for 4-5 million.
81cpcamaro said:The previous Avalanche was Suburban based, probably likely this Siverado EV is more like the Burb than the pickup as well.
This makes me wonder if GM's strategy was to develop the basic architecture of several vehicles all at once. If the Avalanche was basically a Suburban, then I would expect to quickly see an EV Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Yukon XL, Escalade, and Escalade ESV closely on the heels of this truck.
I'm sure there will still be a modular cab and bed truck, but I bet GM discovered that there is a high margin personal truck and SUV market with a lot of nameplates sharing a common architecture.
Since GM has used up their EV tax credits, this play makes sense to build a market as battery costs improve.
No need to wonder, GM has announced this is their plan :)
https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2020/mar/0304-ev.html
In reply to Keith Tanner :
From Keith's link to GM's press release (touches on quite a few of the points brought up here, eh?):
GM’s flexible, modular approach to EV development will drive significant economies of scale and create new revenue opportunities, including:
- Continuous Improvement in Battery Costs: GM’s joint venture with LG Chem will drive battery cell costs below $100/kWh. The cells use a proprietary low cobalt chemistry and ongoing technological and manufacturing breakthroughs will drive costs even lower.
- Flexibility: GM’s all-new global platform is flexible enough to build a wide range of trucks, SUVs, crossovers, cars and commercial vehicles with outstanding design, performance, packaging, range and affordability.
- Capital Efficiency: GM can spend less capital to scale its EV business because it is able to leverage existing property, including land, buildings, tools and production equipment such as body shops and paint shops.
- Complexity Reduction: The vehicle and propulsion systems were designed together to minimize complexity and part counts beyond today’s EVs, which are less complex than conventional vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. For example, GM plans 19 different battery and drive unit configurations initially, compared with 550 internal combustion powertrain combinations available today.
- Rising Customer Acceptance: Third-party forecasters expect U.S. EV volumes to more than double from 2025 to 2030 to about 3 million units on average. GM believes volumes could be materially higher as more EVs are launched in popular segments, charging networks grow and the total cost of ownership to consumers continues to fall.
- New Sources of Revenue: By vertically integrating the manufacture of battery cells, the company can reach beyond its own fleet and license technology to others.
The first generation of GM’s future EV program will be profitable. The initial programs will pave the way for further accretive growth. GM’s technology can be scaled to meet customer demand much higher than the more than 1 million global sales the company expects mid-decade.
STM317 said:Wonder what kind of range the $40k version will have.
This thing seems very similar to the Hummer, and while those are intended to be a bit more "upmarket" than the Silverado, I can't see them dropping too much in price relative to the Hummer with the same range. If the $40k truck only gets a 1 layer battery pack instead of two that could cut the price by a bunch, but it's also going to wreck the range. The Hummer has a curb weight of 9k lbs with the same batteries as this appears to use, so there will be a lot of weight to move around regardless.
Silverado:
Hummer:
Yep, it's a slower, more aerodynamic Hummer EV. And the 450 mile version starts at ~$80k and is currently only available for fleets. For now, regular consumers have to buy the RST for over $100k:
Range is directly tied to price in EVs. Which is going to be an interesting thing to see play out in consumers once everyone understands EV use cases a little better. Is it worth spending an extra $X to get another Y miles of range? I'd like to think the market will zero in on a happy range/price balance, but then I look at how Americans buy pickups - if it can't tow the Empire State Building for that one time a year that you have to tow the Empire State Building, it's useless regardless of pricing.
And since pickups are not efficient vehicles, they're always going to need a lot of battery which means they're always going to be expensive relative to EV cars.
The 4WT work truck (vinyl interior, all the battery) that's making the press tour right now is an interesting beast. They're making 350 of them for "fleet customers", which tells me there's a specific fleet customer with some leverage who wants some. USFS, maybe? Given that it has a 1440 lb payload, we can assume the truck weighs 8559 lbs so it stays at the magic 9999 lb GVWR. About a third of that is battery.
BTW, my wife's company is now trialling two Lightnings. One is being used as an in-town parts runner, the other is a sample runner that runs all over the state. I'm looking forward to hearing how it turns out. Also, a friend who worked on the Lightning thinks it's a decent EV but not a good truck because it was handicapped by the legacy parts reuse from the ICE. They wanted to be first to market.
My company is getting some of the WT's. I had a chance to get one, but passed for now. I'll see how it works out for my co workers first. I love the idea, but there would have been a few negatives for me. #1 is that while the personal use charge is reasonable, it's double my current car. #2 is that "fuel charges" would have been a headache. Currently I have have a company gas card and pay nothing for fuel. For the truck, I believe I would get a fast charger card and they would install a charger at my house. But I would have to figure out what the electricity costs are and expense them every month, which would be a pain. #3 is I'd like to confirm the real world range and charging times. The version they offered me claimed 400 miles. If so, that would be good for me 95+ percent of the time. But I frequently drive over 300 miles, so if real world is much less than 400 it would be significant.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Quoted ranges are just like quoted ranges for ICE vehicles. It's an expected number under specific conditions, your mileage may (literally) vary. Charging times are trickier, as they depend on the state of charge and even the temperature of the battery.
Your coworkers will definitely run into some things that don't work the way they expect, as EVs work differently and they'll have to learn how that's different. Also, I expect the first few weeks will involve a lot of hard acceleration because zooming is fun, and that's hard on mileage :)
You'll need to log in to post.
