[HN Gopher] Ford's $3900 electric crate motor and F-100 concept
___________________________________________________________________
Ford's $3900 electric crate motor and F-100 concept
Author : ufhghfggf
Score : 209 points
Date : 2021-11-03 08:21 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| desktopninja wrote:
| Dare we say it but this is by far a more sustainable/sensible
| option vs buying a new car. Also liked Toyota's idea to simply
| convert ICE's to hydrogen powered ones.
| nradov wrote:
| It's neither sensible or sustainable for mass market use.
| Installing this motor in most cars would require multiple days
| of work plus custom fabrication. And then where do you put the
| batteries?
|
| Manufacturers are happy to sell crate motors just to pick up a
| little extra revenue but it will never be more than a tiny
| niche market for enthusiasts.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| It's undeniably more materially efficient to re-power
| serviceable vehicles but people get their the panties in knot
| over safety so I doubt the "reverse glider" approach will ever
| gain a big foothold in the light vehicle market. It would
| likely be targeted by legislation that makes it economically
| non-viable if that were to happen.
|
| Considering that the venn diagram between "people who profess
| to care a lot about safety" and "people who profess to care a
| lot about the environment" has a pretty massive overlap I look
| forward to the inevitable dumpster fire as people are forced to
| reconcile that the tradeoffs exist.
|
| Furthermore, a ton of ancillary stuff has improved so much over
| the last 20+yr that the cumulative difference is quite
| noticeable. Few people will drop "new Mitsubishi Mirage" money
| re-powering an '03 Civic.
| cat199 wrote:
| > Few people will drop "new Mitsubishi Mirage" money re-
| powering an '03 Civic.
|
| as you hint at re. legislation this is heavily dependant on
| how any transition is structured - a heavy-handed transition
| would put alot of upward market pressure on new EV's and
| downward pressure on old ICV's that could create a market
| niche for conversions - they might not spend "new Mitsubishi
| Mirage" money on a civic, but they might opt to save 5-10k vs
| new/slightly used EV for a '15 converted mercedes ...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This is targeted at people who mod cars for fun, the kind of
| people who swap an LS series V8 into whatever. It's not at all
| intended for DIY conversion by non-experts of regular commuter
| cars to electric power.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| This is targeted about two tax brackets above the bulk of the
| LS crowd but yeah, it's definitely targeted at
| enthusiasts/hobbyists.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's fair. I was thinking of the people who would buy a
| crate motor -- even a basic GM LS3 runs almost $8000.
| People who do swaps by finding a used LS1/2/3 in a junkyard
| are not spending anywhere near that. On average they're
| probably doing the more interesting swaps, too.
| varjag wrote:
| Shouldn't it be 'crate e-motor' rather than 'e-crate motor'?
| scop wrote:
| Something I've never considered: electric motors give car
| companies an excuse to "re-release" their most popular designs
| from the past
| GNOMES wrote:
| Unfortunately will never happen due to crash tests.
| mywittyname wrote:
| This has been done with a few models. Nissan did this with the
| Z and Mazda has done this with the Miata. They aren't new cars,
| but instead they completely restore old cars with brand new
| parts.
|
| It's not cheap though. I think the Miata restoration was
| something like $40k excluding donor vehicle costs.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Been waiting for this for decades.
| culopatin wrote:
| There are some companies out there that sell power plants from
| other brands too. Tesla motors, generics, Leaf, etc. They also
| sell the peripherals you need to control these things and
| they've been around for a while. Might want to check it out!
| jacquesm wrote:
| Note that this is _just_ the motor, you 'll still need a battery,
| traction inverter and a control system, none of which are cheap.
| By the time you are done this system for a regular vehicle with a
| properly engineered battery enclosure will likely cost way
| upwards of $15K.
|
| Have a look at:
|
| https://www.evwest.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=40
|
| to see what goes into a typical EV conversion.
|
| Batteries are here:
|
| https://www.evwest.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=4
| themitigating wrote:
| This is for a project as a hobby or racing. Not for a person
| who wants to save money by building their own electric car
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I'm guessing the ICE equivalent is swapping out a petrol engine
| for a biogas or LPG compatible engine. That is, not just the
| engine but all related plumbing as well.
| earthscienceman wrote:
| Which, hilariously, is very much in the realm of a "normal"
| engine conversion project. There probably aren't many Vanagon
| owners on HN but the hacker mentality very much applies. The
| two most popular gas conversions quote out in the 12k-18k
| range. It's not apples-to-apples with what it would take to
| integrate this crate motor, but it's not orders of magnitude
| off.
|
| https://smallcar.com/vanagon-2.2-and-2.5-conversions/
|
| https://www.bostig.com/bostig-vanagon-conversion-2021-2022-k...
| scrappyjoe wrote:
| Vanagon Syncro owner here! I can't imagine ever parting with
| mine.
|
| My stated plan is to convert it to electric in 2025.
|
| There's good progress being made forging a path - see the
| DreamEV guys on YouTube for a currently ongoing 2wd Tesla
| vanagon conversion. They documented all the steps, are pretty
| entertaining, and just finished like 2 weeks ago.
|
| If I was to do it now, I'd go Tesla engines front and rear to
| keep the AWD and ditch the engine and both diffs, which are
| the most troublesome part of the syncro anyway.
|
| In 5 years, who knows. Maybe I'll transplant the parts from a
| scrapped 2023 Cyber Truck!
| jeffrallen wrote:
| 1974 T2 owner here, and converting it to electric is my
| retirement project, in 15 years or so.
|
| Got to keep these museum pieces alive and relevant!
| jacquesm wrote:
| Which one do you have? T4, T5? Or even a T3?
| lelanthran wrote:
| > The two most popular gas conversions quote out in the
| 12k-18k range.
|
| ...
|
| > https://www.bostig.com/bostig-vanagon-
| conversion-2021-2022-k...
|
| That second link says $8k, not $15k.
| earthscienceman wrote:
| Just as the other comment said, "that's only the conversion
| kit". I didn't want to wax poetic about the various input
| costs to a project like that but let's just say I and
| several of my friends _know_ how much they can cost on both
| the upper and lower ends.
|
| If you DIY hack it together with junkyard motor and spend
| nothing on anything you can get away with a self-made
| conversion for ~5k. If you're buying your parts from a kit
| like these links and using new crate motors then you will
| never get under 12k. Not to mention the cost differences of
| you doing the work vs a mechanic. The cheapest turn-key
| mechanic-done conversion with a new motor won't be under
| 15k and will likely push in the 20k+ range.
| hinkley wrote:
| Drivetrain labor is a huge cost. If your transmission
| goes out you are likely to get a refurbed transmission
| rather than fixing the one you have. It's much cheaper to
| rebuild them ahead of time and ship them around than to
| do it on demand.
|
| It's very likely you will see a disproportionate number
| of conversions being done for vehicles that are
| experiencing transmission or engine failure, because then
| you are comparing the cost of conversion against a $4-5k
| repair bill.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| $15k is way too low of an estimate. Even if you have a
| machine shop and the skills can do all the machining and
| welding yourself. To do the conversion, you'd need (just for
| components in addition to the motor): controller/inverter (a
| hefty one), DC-DC converter, charger + BMS, battery, cooling
| system, accessory adapters for AC/heat, brake pump, etc. + a
| pile of contactors and wire and other high voltage
| components.
|
| Then you gotta build motor mounts, adapt to existing manual
| transmission or figure out some other gear reduction + attach
| to axles, cases for batteries and other components, wiring,
| etc.
|
| It'd be a big project and probably around $40k all in by the
| time you were done.
|
| I can see some of the EV conversion specialty shops using
| this Ford motor as part of their services though because it
| is higher wattage than most of the products the DIY market is
| used to.
|
| Note that this is a higher voltage motor than most DIY
| electric car conversions are done with, too. So harder to
| work with safely and harder to configure battery pack.
| earthscienceman wrote:
| That's completely reasonable, and I don't disagree with
| anything you've said. Still not an order of magnitude
| though! Anyone doing an engine conversion on a project car
| is burning money anyway, and while it won't be for
| everyone... 40k is not in the realm of impossible for a lot
| of the car DIY crowd. In fact, of all the circles I've ever
| touched on, car mod crowds are probably _the most willing_
| to spend ludicrous bucks on an unnecessary project.
|
| Make fun of the rich guy buying $7000 status watches, god
| knows I will, but there are thousands of relatively "poor"
| people in every American city spending 10's of thousands on
| their shitboxes... and I love it.
| Guest19023892 wrote:
| > Make fun of the rich guy buying $7000 status watches,
| god knows I will
|
| I'm going off-topic, but just a heads up, there's a
| fairly large watch community out there
| (https://www.watchuseek.com/forums/) that have a passion
| for watches and treat it as a hobby like any other.
| They're probably one of the friendliest online
| communities I've come across. I haven't bought any
| thousand dollar watches, but I've spent a decent amount
| of time reading about watches and releases, and I know
| there's a lot of people out there that save up their
| money for years, decades, or life, to buy a $7,000 grail
| watch they've dreamed of owning. They might look like
| rich guys wearing a dumb Rolex status watch to an
| outsider, but sometimes that couldn't be further from the
| truth.
| earthscienceman wrote:
| I poked fun at them in an attempt to be self-aware, I'm
| currently wearing Sinn 656L as a lowly postdoc. Nothing
| crazy, mais quand-meme.
| Guest19023892 wrote:
| Ah, I see. I've been thinking far too long about buying a
| Sinn 556i as my daily watch. Well, we can be certain no
| one will poke fun at Sinn watches, because no one outside
| the watch community will ever recognize them on the
| wrist.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Exactly. Anybody that looks at the $3900 price tag for the
| motor and that has never done anything like this before
| might be tempted to think that they can afford it. If
| you're going to build it from junk yard stuff then you will
| be able to stay under $20K, otherwise it will likely be
| much more.
| skykooler wrote:
| Where are you finding the voltage for this motor? I've
| looked several places (including Ford's own site) and can't
| find proper specs anywhere.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's not in the specs, but there's breakdowns of the
| whole Mustang Mach E drivetrain by Munro Live on YouTube,
| and they get into the battery pack, inverter, everything
| else. This is the rear motor out of the Mach E, minus the
| inverter.
|
| The Mach E battery pack is 450 volts. So after going
| through the inverter, it'll be a bit less than that, but
| still very high.
|
| Almost all commercial non-DIY EVs have quite high
| voltages, 300 and over at least. DIY EVs tend to use
| lower voltages but at higher amps.
|
| EDIT: though it would not surprise me to find that you
| could run this motor fine at lower voltages but with
| higher current
| dntrkv wrote:
| Or you buy a wrecked Model S and swap things over.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Yeah, I feel like crate motor is a misnomer here. When I think
| of crate motor, I think of something that has everything
| necessary to put it into a chassis and crank it over.
|
| Not including a traction inverter or control system is like
| buying a LS crate engine without an ECU.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Car hobbies never make financial sense but they're fun. These
| modular/open electric vehicle parts are a hacker's dream.
| sushsjsuauahab wrote:
| Where can I buy it? So many cheap old cars lying around waiting
| to be electrified.
| olivermarks wrote:
| From Ford. There is a huge drivetrain elements market from
| Ford, Mopar, GM (whose terrific LS series of engines are in
| hundreds of thousands of street rods, race cars etc). This is
| a natural progression and an encouraging continuation (for
| now, bureaucrats willing) of the long tradition of US car
| building choices.
|
| The challenge for EV conversion is not the motor, which is
| simple, it's the battery skateboard and the technology to
| process the stored energy into viable mileage.
|
| EV's are a huge fire risk, my concern would be fast EV's and
| inadequate battery protection in a converted vehicle + impact
| damage to charged batteries = inferno.
|
| There is plastics tech on the horizon to stop damaged ganged
| up batteries in a runaway thermal event from trapped energy
| contagion but right now little effort has been made to
| isolate batteries to prevent this.
|
| https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2021/10/22/electric-c.
| ..
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Do you think it would be easier or safer to convert a truck
| with a full length bed? Like could just put it as a layer
| in the back bed without messing with the chassis?
|
| I just started driving again. Got an old Tacoma. New trucks
| are way too big and most don't even have full beds. Would
| love to just keep a 'classic beater truck' design but EV!
| Cheaper than just buying a new one anyways.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Yes. I was hanging around with a homebrew EV club 10
| years ago (I like all types of vehicles) and most of the
| conversions were small trucks with the batteries in the
| bed and ev conversion under hood. The sweet spot is still
| late 70's/early 80's trucks which are relatively simple,
| still made out of steel and are relatively easy to adapt.
| In the event of fire it is relatively easy to install a
| big lever and spring loaded connectors to ungang the
| battery connections.
| nlarion wrote:
| https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-9000-MACHE
| abakker wrote:
| Per the ford website for SEMA -
|
| >Weighing in at a svelte 205 pounds, this electric dynamo
| delivers 281 horsepower, 317lb.-ft. of torque, and generates a
| maximum speed of 13,800rpm. The Eluminator crate engine package
| includes a high-voltage motor-to-traction invertor harness,
| low-voltage harness connector, and vent tube assembly.
|
| so, it sounds like the the motor traction inverter is included.
| Controller and the batter obviously still costs $$.
|
| https://performanceparts.ford.com/sema/
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| That's a bit strange since the text itself elsewhere says no
| traction inverter included.
|
| The text there says includes "inverter harness"... What does
| this really mean? You sure they're simply not referring to
| the inverter mount point / wiring connector at the top of the
| motor? "Does NOT include: Traction
| inverter Control system"
|
| If it included the inverter it'd be an incredible deal --
| like half the price of equivalently spec'd motors from other
| manufacturers -- which is why there's no way it does.,
| abakker wrote:
| I think you're right. they are just saying it is pre-wired.
| well, it would be handy if they had the rest of the stuff
| available and already pre-integrated.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's weird they're selling the motor without a
| controller/inverter. I can see they probably don't want
| to give away any of their own IP but they could at least
| offer a Curtis or whatever controller that's compatible
| with it.
| thrower123 wrote:
| I wish they would just make the F-100 again, without the electric
| bits. Manual transmission and a carbed straight-six, original
| interior.
|
| They were very pretty trucks.
| djrogers wrote:
| They'd make it, if it were legal. There are a thousand laws and
| regulations that a brand new F100 would fall afoul of, from
| crash safety to emissions...
| crocodiletears wrote:
| I wish we had a tiered set of safety requirements for
| vehicles. In my opinion, occupant safety should be much more
| negotiable than it is. A good example is the column thickness
| on modern vehicles. I'd gladly trade some roll-over
| protection for increased visibility.
| arprocter wrote:
| Looking forward to seeing this in an old Mini or a Fiero
|
| Shame there aren't photos of the inside of the bed or the rear
| axle - from the shots under the hood it seems like it would be
| difficult to fit without losing cargo space
|
| I'd assume most engine swappers would be more interested in
| something that mounts longitudinally
| jacquesm wrote:
| Project e-Binky... it's going to take some years but likely
| will be worth waiting for.
| tclancy wrote:
| In a Fiero? Might as well add wings while you're at it to take
| advantage of the lift issues they had.
| arprocter wrote:
| It was the first 'mid-engined car you could probably find in
| a junkyard' that came to mind, and I know people have managed
| to fit Chevy LS motors
|
| Cheap MR2s will normally be rust buckets. That said, I did
| see someone driving an X1/9 on the GCP a few months ago -
| there can't be many of those still around
| vortico wrote:
| How much would it cost in total parts/labor to find someone to
| buy and restore a 1978-1995 F-150 with new paint job and
| replacement of rusty parts, and then add this motor and a
| ridiculous amount of batteries? I'd sign up tomorrow if the
| opportunity fell out of the sky.
|
| Also is the intention here to just leave it in 3rd gear while
| running, like the Genovation GXE Electric Corvette mod?
| theluketaylor wrote:
| The sky is the limit when it comes to car restoration prices,
| but if you started with a reasonably straight body and frame
| without a ton of rust it would likely in the ballpark of 10-15k
| for the restore and another 25-35k for the EV conversion on the
| low end to get 100-150ish miles range. You could spend any
| amount of top of that for a better restore, modern suspension
| and brakes, or more range.
|
| Old trucks will be among the cheapest to convert since there is
| tons of space for battery boxes under the hood, between the
| frame rails, or just in the bed without much cutting or
| welding. Downside is old truck prices have really jumped in the
| last few years and are no longer the classic bargains they once
| were.
|
| There are conversion kits for a number of vehicles already
| available and I'm sure tons more are coming.
|
| * EV West has an air cooled VW kit for $8000 (plus battery)
|
| * Swindon Powertrains has a Mini kit for PS10,000 (plus
| battery)
|
| * 2ECV has a Citron 2CV kit for PS16,000 (inc battery)
|
| * Zero EV is working on a Porsche 911 kit for SCs, G body and
| 964 that includes DC Fast charging, but I haven't seen pricing
| yet.
| skrbjc wrote:
| 10-15K to restore a classic truck is not possible. Unless
| you're just talking about getting it to reliably run on the
| road. If you're talking about a paint job and new interior,
| and you're not doing it yourself, then you are easily in the
| 30K+ range.
| bjourne wrote:
| There's a French startup that does exactly that:
| https://www.phoenixmobility.co/en/ The company has generated a
| lot of press but the concept hasn't caught on in other
| countries so I assume it is not very practical.
| TheCondor wrote:
| It's not a turnkey sort of thing. Every 1981 F-150 is going
| to be a unique snowflake of rust, broken parts, etc..
|
| There will be some amazing barn finds where you could pull
| the motor out and bolt in batteries and an electric motor on
| a weekend and then there will be trucks where you basically
| rebuild the entire truck from scratch.
|
| What might be interesting is an electric rolling truck
| chassis production and then various vintage looking bodies
| you could attach to them.
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| I'm waiting for something like this IRL. Ford already sells
| chassis only trucks, so if they would just make that with
| the battery pack and motors, I could bolt on the body
| myself.
| jacquesm wrote:
| $25 to $50K or thereabouts for a one-off.
|
| Series might get cheaper. Keep in mind that just the electrical
| bits will be $15 to $20K, and depending on how far the truck is
| gone you could easily spend that much more on getting it
| serviceable and pretty.
|
| Car restoration rarely is economically viable unless you go for
| something exotic.
| vortico wrote:
| Ah, but that's a reasonable price for something as low-key
| exotic vintage as an '80s F-150. They're beautiful cars, just
| like in the article photos. A decent quality Power Ram 250
| can go for $35k (and they'll run for another 500k miles in
| that condition) so 25-50k for an electric restoration isn't
| that bad.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Cost is not the only factor, the other one is time.
|
| Merely getting an old, broken vehicle back on the road is
| lot of work. Completely restoring a vehicle to like-new is
| an order of magnitude more work. Adding in an equipment
| swap from one version of a model to another (maybe
| auto->manual swap, or V6-V8 swap) is again so much more
| work.
|
| Complete conversions like this take an insane amount of
| time. Probably months of time working on it full time. Part
| time, you're looking at a multi-year project. There is
| going to be a lot of trailblazing going on here, and there
| might only be 3 people in the world who can help you answer
| your problem.
| shon wrote:
| So cool! Now I can convert my 86 Lazy Daze RV to electric...
| [deleted]
| myself248 wrote:
| We are the last generation who will understand the onomatopoeia
| "vroom vroom". Going forward, the term will be a skeuomorphism.
| [deleted]
| burlesona wrote:
| Too bad they don't have such a truck on the market, I'd love to
| be able to buy something electric and of reasonable size.
| jnmandal wrote:
| The main draw for me is the smaller size of this car. I'm not
| sure why car companies have slowly inflated the size of all
| vehicles to be extremely large.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I'm guessing your are not from the US?
| mywittyname wrote:
| Safety is one aspect. Pedestrian crash tests require body
| panels that are a minimum of ~2.5" out from any crash structure
| in the car. Plus regulations on things like minimum headlight
| height, etc.
|
| The other is that adding size to a vehicle adds very little to
| the cost to produce a car, but it makes the vehicle so much
| more functional and appealing to buyers. In most of the USA,
| vehicle size is not a constraint. So the size of one's vehicle
| is mostly personal preference. And bigger = more useful.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Well, it's a pick-up truck, it's kind of to be expected that
| they can carry a lot.
|
| There's still plenty of options for compact cars, and if you
| want to go even smaller, motorcycles. That said, I don't
| believe there's many small electric cars. Electric motorcycles
| and bicycles are definitely a thing though.
| davidw wrote:
| > they can carry a lot.
|
| It's not that. Older pickups that you see on, say, ranches
| carry plenty, but are not so huge, especially in terms of
| height, where a small adult barely comes up to the top of the
| hood if there's even a little bit of a lift.
|
| Mr Money Mustache goes into this:
| https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-
| wo...
| mywittyname wrote:
| > That said, I don't believe there's many small electric
| cars.
|
| Most electric car offerings are small cars. Prior to the
| current generation of EVs, most manufactures offered
| "compliance cars" which were EV conversions of whatever the
| cheapest car the manufacture offered in the USA was.
|
| These were sold almost exclusively in California or NY and
| were sold at a loss. So like, Fiat 500e, Ford Focus EV, Chevy
| Spark EV, VW eGolf, etc.
| tyingq wrote:
| This appears to be the crate motor:
| https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-9000-MACHE
| exhilaration wrote:
| Unlike the other motors, they've only posted a rendering. Can
| we safely call it vaporware for now?
| [deleted]
| jacquesm wrote:
| https://performanceparts.ford.com/images/part/full/M-9000-MA.
| ..
|
| does not look like a rendering to me
| orangepurple wrote:
| Until we can order it it's vaporware
| chrisjc wrote:
| Agreed. After, this is the motor and drive systems from the
| F-150 Lightning and/or Mach-E that really exist, right?
|
| Whether they'll sell it individually, esp in this time of
| shortages is what is possibly vaporware.
| mywittyname wrote:
| This is not a new undertaking for Ford. Ford sells a ton
| crate motors. This is already available on the Ford
| Performance website.
| https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-9000-MACHE
|
| There has never been an FP part that was given a part
| number, but never made available. They have offered
| pretty exotic engines, and even the components to convert
| lesser Mustangs into special edition ones.
|
| It is highly unlikely Ford will renege on this.
| yumraj wrote:
| So, Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla FSD are also vaporware, yes?
|
| Oh, forgot, you can buy Tesla FSD, it just doesn't work
| that way.. So, I guess it's still a vaporware.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _So, Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla FSD are also vaporware,
| yes?_
|
| The parent comment revealed the marketing sleight-of-
| hand, didn't it? The Cybertruck can be "ordered",
| therefore it's not vapourware. It doesn't matter that the
| vehicle doesn't actually exist and the order involves a
| tiny, refundable deposit.
| [deleted]
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Can we safely call it vaporware for now?
|
| No. When Ford says that they will build and sell something,
| they build and sell it. The pickup featured in the fine
| article is a concept vehicle, but the motors are production
| crate motors.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| I am in no way a mechanics/chassis expert but I have been
| involved in EV projects in the past and there is a substantial
| amount of design that goes into protecting EV batteries from
| impact or perfuration.
|
| I agree that it would be much more sustainable to convert our old
| fleet of cars into EV but unless someone brings forward a big
| leap in battery protection for these conversions, to me it still
| feels relatively unsafe when compared with a vehicle designed
| from the ground up as an EV.
| ortusdux wrote:
| Imagine being a first responder and going on a call to save
| someone from a DIY electric vehicle. EVs present an entirely
| different set of safety considerations, but at least the major
| brands have thought through these things and provide safety
| features, documentation, and training. I doubt the truck in the
| link has a guide like this:
| https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/2021_Mod...
| CivBase wrote:
| Is there any reason to believe a DIY EV conversion is any
| more dangerous than significant modifications to vehicles
| with traditional combustion engines?
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| The major difference (Apart from the electrocution risk
| when doing extractions) is that in an EV fire, Hydrogen
| Flouride can also be released, which is an uber nasty
| colorless gas.
|
| From what I was explained it is a grim mechanism, the gas
| reacts with water, forming a highly corrosive acid. In
| humans the gas reacts with the moisture in your eyes and
| your airway forming an acid and doing a massive chemical
| burn. You basically choke with burned lung tissue while
| going blind all at the same time.
|
| Gas detection was a big health and safety component in an
| EV charger company I worked for in the past.
| Animats wrote:
| Nobody knows where the battery disconnect is on some DIY
| car.
|
| Here's the first responder's manual for the Chevy Bolt.[1]
| Under the rear seat, which lifts up, there is a big
| emergency disconnect handle. Unlatch handle, pull handle
| up, pull out disconnect. NFPA has vehicle guides for first
| responders, and fire trucks presumably carry those in some
| form.
|
| [1]
| https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/Training/AFV/Emergency-
| Re...
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Old vehicles are really unsafe before you even consider
| switching them to EV. Overall, I'm not sure what the outcome
| would be, could go either way depending on specific factors,
| but presumably for old cars, long distance travel is not the
| point of the exercise.
| bri3d wrote:
| The idea here is definitely not fleet conversion - this looks
| to target the crate motor industry, which is really the realm
| of high-end "rod shops" who build one-off vehicles for monied
| buyers (DIY enthusiasts, by and large, buy and build junkyard
| engines, not crate motors).
|
| These vehicles already are generally built without an eye for
| safety or compliance with standards of any form, and very few
| are driven a significant number of miles after the conversion
| is complete, so I'm not sure this is a meaningful issue for
| this specific product.
| Griffinsauce wrote:
| I wonder if the emissions from battery fires are counted in EV
| impact calculations.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Agreed. A typical EV has _thousands_ of cells and the way these
| are placed in the chassis and how the interconnects are done is
| a major safety aspect. You can 't just toss a bunch of cells
| into an enclosure and call it a day, I suspect that for each
| and every car model you'd want to design a custom enclosure if
| you want do do this safely.
|
| I'm in the process of increasing the capacity of the battery of
| my e-bike more than fourfold and even that is not a simple job.
| zrail wrote:
| I sort of suspect what will happen is small time
| manufacturers will come out with sealed battery packs
| designed for specific applications. I.e. I want to electrify
| my Supra, I'm gonna buy it from a shop that makes them
| specifically for my generation of Supra.
| ehnto wrote:
| I'm imagining the same thing, and I imagine we'll
| eventually have battery cell inter-operability standards
| for cars that make that even easier.
|
| In the past we didn't make it mandatory to have engines be
| easily swapped to other models of vehicle, but I think
| we're more conscious of re-usability and the long term
| lifecycle of vehicles and part of making sure that's
| efficient I feel is making sure I can take a battery pack
| from a crashed 2025 E-Supra nd put it in my 2032 E-Skyline.
| bluedino wrote:
| A gas motor is about the same price. There's no exhaust system
| for this, and it's smaller than Ford's monstrous modular V8's, so
| it seems like it'd be an easy retrofit.
|
| But if you were to actually do a conversion: How does the
| heating/AC work? How does your power steering work? How do the
| brakes work?
|
| Many things in a standard car work off vacuum. There's no vacuum
| on an electric engine. Other things run off the serpentine belt.
|
| These things also make running a newer engine in an older car a
| pain. Sure, the engine from a newer Mustang you find in the
| junkyard might only be $4,000 but you're going to spend at least
| another $10-15,000 getting it to run in your older Mustang or
| F150.
| skrbjc wrote:
| In regards to vacuum, diesels don't produce vacuum since they
| don't have a throttle, and so they use a vacuum pump. They run
| off the engine, but I imagine you can get an electric driven
| one. Also many vehicles use electric driven pumps for power
| steering. I think the big thing, as others have pointed out, is
| buying the batteries and putting them somewhere in an old car.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Electric AC has been available for a while to retrofit old
| cars.
| antisthenes wrote:
| > But if you were to actually do a conversion: How does the
| heating/AC work? How does your power steering work? How do the
| brakes work?
|
| Those are the easy parts because all 3 run off of hydraulics
| and electricity. As long as they get power supplied to them,
| they all just work.
|
| Brakes don't even need power, I believe, and can work purely
| mechanically. Of course you won't have regenerative braking in
| a retrofit.
|
| > Sure, the engine from a newer Mustang you find in the
| junkyard might only be $4,000 but you're going to spend at
| least another $10-15,000 getting it to run in your older
| Mustang or F150
|
| That's generally an issue with high labor costs and not the car
| industry in particular.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| >Brakes don't even need power, I believe, and can work purely
| mechanically.
|
| Yow. Power brakes have been standard equipment since at least
| 1950. Disconnect the vacuum line on your brake booster and go
| for a drive to the grocery store and you will very quickly
| discover their importance.
| bluedino wrote:
| >> Those are the easy parts because all 3 run off of
| hydraulics and electricity. As long as they get power
| supplied to them, they all just work.
|
| Except the heat in your car is transferred from the coolant
| running through your engine. Which is why the 'heat' in your
| car doesn't work until you've been driving it for a little
| bit.
|
| >> Brakes don't even need power, I believe, and can work
| purely mechanically.
|
| Brakes definitely need power. Have you even driven an older
| car without power brakes or steering? There's a reason they
| used to have much larger steering wheels in cars. And most of
| your brakes are hydraulic with vacuum assist. Turn your
| ignition off (in a large parking lot) and try to steer or
| brake your car! The brakes will work once or twice...
|
| You would need to add electric power steering to an older
| car. You can convert over a Volvo system, get an electric
| pump, or do it a few other ways.
|
| >> That's generally an issue with high labor costs and not
| the car industry in particular.
|
| I'm talking just parts. For example, you need a control pack
| from Ford which contains the ECU and wiring harness which is
| nearly two thousand dollars, and aftermarket systems aren't
| even cheaper.
|
| https://www.jegs.com/i/Ford+Performance/397/M-6017A504VB/100.
| ..
| davidhyde wrote:
| They just couldn't resist putting in a giant tablet screen front
| and centre could they. What a pity.
| WhompingWindows wrote:
| There's some percentage of cars out there that are vintage
| vehicles, which owners don't mind spending the money on to keep
| going, even though they're emitting diesel fumes and are
| inefficient. There's a love of these machines, a love which is a
| hobby and a passion for many car-folks. Giving them some
| electrification options is a great idea, it needs to happen and
| it'll create some really fun and zippy vintage cars :)
| mythrwy wrote:
| "Down in his barn, my uncle preserved for me an old machine!"
| beauzero wrote:
| https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-9000-MACHE
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| What everyone is forgetting is the crash. . I've yet to see data
| on how well that old truck protects you in a front-end collision
| when the engine block absorbing the energy is in a junkyard.
| tata71 wrote:
| Old trucks don't have crumple, so the truck will survive, and
| you'll look alright. But your organs and shit might be
| compromised.
| hcurtiss wrote:
| Having owned a 1970 F-100, I think you may be overestimating
| the crash protection they had in the first instance. This takes
| it from approximately terrible to . . . also terrible.
| onychomys wrote:
| At least by then they had seatbelts. I restored a 1954 F-250,
| and the very first thing I had to do was install aftermarket
| belts. Now that I'm grown with kids, I'm not at all sure I'd
| let them drive the same thing, crumple zones and airbags and
| whatnot are all just too good to pass up.
| criddell wrote:
| I don't think it's really an old truck though, is it? I thought
| it was a new truck styled to look like a 1978 model.
| damon_c wrote:
| The time is almost upon us where I can finally convert my '81
| Jeep Scrambler!
| dsr_ wrote:
| People talking about converting vehicles are missing the point.
|
| Ford wants to convert people. The people who would buy a pickup
| from them today, and aren't sure about this electric motor
| business -- they need to see something cool and reasonably
| aspirational.
|
| They'll look at the F-100 at big car shows, and a few years later
| see e-crate conversions at the local car shows, and then when the
| price of an electric F-150 has dropped enough, that's what
| they'll be buying.
| vgeek wrote:
| I regularly attend car shows (typically domestic, mostly
| 1950-70's) with my dad. The last few years there have been a
| few pseudo rat rods that have used scavenged drivetrains from
| either Priuses(ii?) or Nissan Leafs. They're typically just
| looked at as a novelty-- the crowd doesn't take them seriously
| just by looking at them. They don't make power, and even then,
| the HP/tq figures wouldn't really be a 1:1 comparison, given
| that the EV drivetrain has torque from 0rpm. The example I use
| is an s2000-- it has 240hp, which looks great on paper, but it
| needs revs to make it-- and torque has the same issue.
| Demonstrating the power band concept is what will make
| widespread adoption occur-- otherwise people won't be making an
| apples to apples comparison. A $4k (plus batteries, adapters,
| etc.) 300hp/300tq electric motor shouldn't be compared to a $4k
| Small Block Chevrolet crate engine when the area under the
| curve for HP/TQ more closely resembles a $8k+ 396 or 454 Big
| Block (yes, peaks will be higher on the ICE, but safe bet that
| 1/4 and 0-60 will be close). The value prop is that the EV
| drivetrain will be higher performance than a traditional ICE.
|
| This ignores that many of the older cars just _sound_ like they
| 're powerful, but in reality would struggle to out-accelerate a
| modern day v6 commuter car. Plus nostalgia. Boomers who grew up
| won't suddenly want to put a motor where the engine should go--
| no Saturday afternoon oil changes, $300 headers or custom
| exhausts. Gen X or younger will likely be the target customer
| here-- I know I have already mentioned the idea of one of these
| Eluminators to my dad as a swap into his 1965 Chevy C/10 when I
| first heard about them.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > 300hp/300tq electric motor shouldn't be compared to a $4k
| Small Block Chevrolet crate engine when the area under the
| curve
|
| Eh, maybe. Area under the curve doesn't tell the whole story
| because ICEs have transmissions to keep them in the meat of
| the powerband past first gear, EVs don't (usually). With the
| exception of Telsas, EV drivetrains lose a lot of power in
| the upper rev band, so their highway acceleration is
| comparatively weak.
|
| But an ICE can be kept in the powerband for as many gears as
| can be added. Ford's 10R80 keeps the GT between 6200-7500
| RPMs between like 20MPH (depending on rear end ratio) and top
| speed. The average HP under that curve is like 450HP (out of
| 460hp peak).
|
| Ford is bragging about how the Mach-E GT hits 60 in like 3.5
| seconds (faster than any other Mustang, GT500 included), yet
| glosses over the fact that it traps 100mph in the quarter
| mile. Which is less than both the 2.3L ecoboost and the
| previous generation 3.7L V6 managed (around 103mph each) and
| is a far cry from what the 5.0L can do (115-120), or the
| GT500 (131).
|
| They end up the reverse situation of the S2k: fast from a
| stop, slow from a roll. I haven't seen a roll race between a
| Mach E and a lesser Mustang, but I would bet starting at a
| 40mph roll, the Mach E would lose, despite being technically
| superior in power/torque.
| vgeek wrote:
| Yep, if they're doing an LS swap with a T56, then the
| modern transmission will be a _huge_ advantage. I was
| thinking in the sense of something like the more common
| 4L60E /TH350 (3/4 speed autos) that most people resort to
| when doing swaps in old cars (at least GM).
| nindalf wrote:
| Isn't the electric F-150 already comparable in price to regular
| F-150s (around $40k)? So these prospective F-150 buyers
| shouldn't be waiting for a price drop right?
| mywittyname wrote:
| Ford notes in the financial reports the proportion of F-150
| buyers who pay over $50k for the truck. It' usually very high
| (over 40%).
|
| F-150 buyers are not that price sensitive. They are luxury
| vehicles, despite the working class veneer.
| vl wrote:
| Not entirely correct, under F-150 (and Heavy Duty 250 etc)
| brand they sell essentially two different vehicles (or
| three, if you count Raptor), which differ in price more
| than twice. Non-luxury version is priced low, has no extras
| and oriented to price-sensitive work truck segment of the
| market. King Ranch/Platinum (and Limited nobody buys) are
| premium tiers with all the latest tech and amenities, which
| are priced like luxury cars. Although both are "F-150s"
| they are oriented at distinctly different market segments.
| newsclues wrote:
| I know plenty of people with expensive trucks that aren't
| luxurious, but functional for farming and
| trades/construction.
| mywittyname wrote:
| So, just to be clear, they call out F-150s over $50k, not
| all F-series.
|
| That's right about the dividing line between work truck
| and luxury truck. <$50k buys a SuperCrew XLT 4x4 with the
| max tow package. Basically, it's the best "work truck"
| F-150 you can get.
|
| Everything beyond that are luxury trim packages. Heck,
| you can't even get a 8' bed unless you go for the lower
| tier trims. Which points to the XL/XLTs being the work
| trims and the Platinum/Raptor/Tremor/King Ranch being
| luxury trims.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| I like classic vehicles. But I don't like that they are gross
| polluters. I can definitely see a niche market for conversions.
| mymythisisthis wrote:
| I'm not so sure. If you have to swap out the engine, trans,
| brakes, there won't be much left of the classic car. It'll
| just be a modern car, but much less safe.
| pie42000 wrote:
| More importantly, this niche market will be the people making
| YouTube videos and attending car shows. These people will
| have huge influence on more casual Ford pickups fans, and
| will help sway them to electric
| hinkley wrote:
| One of the things we should be pushing for is standardizing
| engine mount geometries for the last generations of ICE
| vehicles, so that every vehicle built after say 2030 can have
| a COTS electric conversion kit that works for it.
|
| What you want is economies of scale. You need to be able to
| design a drop-in replacement that works for millions of
| vehicles, not one-offs for 25,000 vehicles. An electric
| conversion will be made fairly early for the most popular
| vehicles and everything that uses the same engine (eg,
| Accord, Camry, Jetta). The Mazda rotary engines will not.
| They'll end up being taxed to death, unless someone can make
| cheap adapters.
| yardie wrote:
| Engine swaps have been going on for decades. Swapping a GM
| LS into a compatible frame is quite common. The mount
| points are standardized on the engine block so you only
| need to weld the matching mounts to the auto frame.
|
| I don't see much of a demand for conversions for Accords,
| Camrys and Jettas. These are popular, reliable, yet
| disposable cars. Those buyers would be better served buying
| a new EV. I do see a market for car people cars: MX-5,
| S2000, GTIs, 4Runner, and FJ40s.
| mymythisisthis wrote:
| Ebikes are getting popular. This market will grow. The
| ebikes will get better. I think that is were the market
| is going.
|
| Nostalgia is building for the 1990s, those cars might
| make a comeback, in terms of restoration projects.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| I will never buy an electric car until it's feasible to drive
| across the country in it without the car dictating my schedule
| and route. It's really that simple.
|
| I have a diesel truck right now and I can drive 400 miles on a
| tank easily, then spend 5 minutes at any gas station off the
| highway and be right on my way for another 400 miles.
|
| The truth is that they have to put all this crazy luxurious
| tech into these cars to lure people away from thinking about
| the things that their old car can do that their new car will be
| incapable of.
| aembleton wrote:
| Don't you need to go for a pee or eat anything when you're
| doing those 400 mile stints?
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Going 400 miles between going to the bathroom and eating
| seems perfectly reasonable. Especially if you have drinks
| and/or snacks in your car.
| SamuelAdams wrote:
| I see initial adoption targeting two car households. For
| example my spouse and I have a gas powered Honda CRV. It's
| fairly new and we plan on keeping it for 10+ years. Just took
| it on a road trip across the country and it worked really
| well.
|
| The other car is gas powered, but we could totally replace it
| with an electric vehicle. Most day to day driving is in a
| city, and we drive less than 20 miles a day total. So having
| a vehicle with a 200-300 mile range is ok for that.
|
| However if you are single and only have one vehicle then yeah
| getting an EV right now is probably not feasible if you do
| long road trips. I suppose you could fly or get a rental car
| for those once in a while trips though.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| As a non-native-English-speaker, TIL the word "crate engine".
| GordonS wrote:
| I'm a native English speaker (Scottish), and have never heard
| of a "crate engine" before either; I guess it's an American
| thing.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| Chevy LS swaps are so common it's become a meme.
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| With the strong motorsports traditions in Japan and Great
| Britain, I would be surprised if this was a uniquely American
| thing.
|
| I've never known anyone that has purchased a crate engine,
| but doesn't it sound fantastic that such a thing exists?
| Fresh from the factory, with a warranty, support, parts, etc
| just by going to your local dealership! Put it into anything
| you can think of, whether that be an old car or something
| else entirely - limited only by your imagination and bank
| balance!
| GordonS wrote:
| I meant the phrase "crate engine", not the existence of
| engines :)
|
| We generally call self-build cars "kit cars", because they
| come as a kit that includes everything you need. AFAIK we
| don't have a specific word/phrase to specifically describe
| the engine (other than "engine", obv :)
| btbuildem wrote:
| The one massive caveat I see with the drop-in motor conversions
| is that it's not just the motor -- you need batteries too.
| Retrofitting those seems like a much harder challenge. In new
| designs, they're at the bottom of the chassis, because they're
| large and heavy. In retro-fits, where would they go? Engine bay?
| In place of gas tank? It doesn't seem like there is enough room,
| and the weight distribution considerations are a major concern.
|
| I see this as a niche market at best. The ICE engine at the heart
| of a vehicle is an old design. Nevermind all the secondary
| systems that piggy-back off it, these can probably be adapted.
| But the distribution of drivetrain into the wheels simplifies the
| construction massively. One huge advantage of the new electric
| cars is the lower maintenance, especially with the drivetrain.
| Converted vehicles would inherit many of the legacy problems,
| plus new issues stemming from kit conversions and interfacing old
| systems with new powerplants.
| jpindar wrote:
| There's a huge amount of room underneath a pickup truck.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That looks like a good price, but I'm guessing it doesnt include
| the battery. The real question is what does the battery cost to
| power the motor.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| No battery, no charger, no DC-DC converter, and the
| controller/inverter isn't there as well. The latter is probably
| gonna be more expensive than the motor itself. We're talking
| about an inverter that can put out 250kW three phase AC. The
| board components alone are expensive.
|
| I find it odd they didn't include the inverter from the Mach E
| mounted on the motor, because that's how the Mach E is
| configured.
|
| A full tear down of this motor (and its inverter) from the Mach
| E can be found here:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHVV52lPyIs
|
| Notably this motor is potentially technically inferior to the
| one that Ford put in the front of the Mach E.
|
| Indeed the motor price is competitive. But most of the
| competition from EV conversion shops is usually packaged along
| with a matching controller/inverter, so less hassle and also
| hard to compare price.
|
| Most people doing a conversion would be better off just buying
| a salvaged Tesla drive unit -- which includes the inverter and
| gear reduction and can attach directly to short axles and has
| been reverse engineered so can be driven by third party
| software.
| jdhn wrote:
| Ford has really been hitting the PR circuit while firing on all
| cylinders. The lead engineer of the F-150 Lightning was on the
| cover of Time, and now this.
| dTal wrote:
| >firing on all cylinders
|
| This'll have to go. "Fluxing on all windings"?
| MisterTea wrote:
| "Gate drivers firing in all quadrants"
| kibwen wrote:
| "Pulling maximum amperage"
| dTal wrote:
| These all sound hella cool. The next time a petrol head
| complains that electric vehicles lack romance, I'm
| showing them this thread.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| On all capacitors.
| cat199 wrote:
| unsurprising considering how radical their product line revamp
| has been of late - a ford that doesn't make sedans and an
| electric SUV "mustang" are pretty big changes for a fairly
| conservative customer base
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Price is good, really, people in the market to do swaps are used
| to paying big bucks for crate motors. This isn't really targeted
| at everyday consumers. Even so, I do agree that it would be nice
| to see battery options as well. At least something with a
| decently modular form factor that is targeted at powering an EV.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| Price could be lower. Cheaper to make motor than an engine.
|
| Big issue is lack of inverter. If you get a bigger motor need a
| bigger inverter.
|
| With a lot of parts now if you buy a la carte you spend as much
| or more than buying them in the vehicle especially at low end.
| They price them as if you are taking away a car sale. Not a
| good model in my opinion.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Price could be lower. Cheaper to make motor than an engine.
|
| Sure, they could probably drop the price some. But it's
| starting out at half the cost of GM's most basic LS3 crate
| motor, so it's not _terribly_ priced.
| mmmBacon wrote:
| Having known many people who do this kind of a thing as a hobby
| and semi-professionally I highly doubt there will be much
| interest from the traditional hot rodding crowd. It's the
| mechanical nature of things that they love, the sound of a well
| tuned motor, and the smell of fuel.
|
| Maybe things like this will help seed a new generation of hot
| rodders but I can't see the traditional crowd turning in
| wrenches for a soldering iron.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| As someone who's on the edge of that community, this is the
| type of thing that would get me into it. I've lost interest
| in getting to all of the tight little areas on a conventional
| engine setup.
|
| While an electric engine doesn't remove all of that, it
| simplifies significant portions of it.
|
| -----
|
| I can see this being interesting for people who have a car
| with a frame/body that's in good condition but have failing
| engine or exhaust components. Instead of replacing them, put
| the money towards a conversion.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > I can't see the traditional crowd turning in wrenches for a
| soldering iron
|
| Looking at what it takes to do a swap, it seems like it's far
| less soldering and still a huge amount of wrench turning.
| It's possible some of the old folks won't go for it, but I
| know a bunch of hot rodders that would totally do it. Maybe
| not exclusively, but at least for the novelty. Heck, the
| biggest electric-mod enthusiast I know is pushing 70.
| ufhghfggf wrote:
| Tesla's opposition to Right to Repair has chilled the brand to
| many frugal car buyers who drive their daily beater 20+ years and
| 300,000+ miles. Being able to buy an affordable electric crate
| motor will open up the world of electric to those who like to
| keep their technology for the long haul.
| ctdonath wrote:
| Solved by Tesla building EVs to million-mile specs. Between
| lasting 3-4x longer with few repairs, and gas savings over long
| usage, TCO is _far_ less than ICE.
|
| Running numbers, I'm seeing a "Tri+FSD" Cybertruck paying for
| itself at 410,000 miles just in gas savings, then amounting to
| a free second vehicle over the next >400,000 miles. That should
| make the frugal overcome "right to repair" issues.
| dTal wrote:
| It seems to be a trend in electric vehicles. I just bought an
| electric scooter which came with literature warning that my
| warranty would be voided if I so much as undid a single bolt.
| It's rather jarring, coming from the world of cycling, where
| stripping your vehicle down to atoms and reassembling it is
| considered normal maintenance.
|
| Incidentally, the same literature claimed my warranty would
| also be voided if I failed to maintain the scooter properly.
| I'm not sure where to go from there...
| bserge wrote:
| I have always opened up shit with the understanding that my
| warranty is then gone.
|
| Imo, it's a minor issue compared to them making the thing
| unopenable, using clips/safety bolts that break, siliconing
| all the electronics, etc.
| dd36 wrote:
| Pretty sure voiding warranty for opening isn't legal.
| dTal wrote:
| If only that were globally true.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You're free to ignore such warnings.
|
| And in many cases the warnings are there because the law
| comes down hard on manufacturers that enable bypassing the
| (mandatory) governor systems which limit the speed (and
| sometimes the torque) at which the vehicles can operate.
| dTal wrote:
| Sure, I'm free to void the warranty and no one will arrest
| me. Seems unfair though.
| AshleyGrant wrote:
| You're free to ignore those warning stickers because the
| onus is on the manufacturer to prove that you opening the
| device caused the issue. Warranty stickers are a scare
| tactic.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warra
| nty...
| dTal wrote:
| Only ~5% of the world's population is subject to that
| law. The company I bought the scooter from is in the
| remaining 95%.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| It matters less where the company is than where you are.
| I mean, sure, a company in China can refuse to honor the
| warranty, but they risk losing the ability to sell their
| goods in the US.
| CivBase wrote:
| Yeah, but warnings like that confuse owners about what
| their rights are. I'm starting to think there should be a
| penalty for businesses who assert rights beyond what they
| actually have.
| kfarr wrote:
| Electric bikes are refreshingly serviceable, I've learned a
| lot about bike maintenance and repair by using a Tern GSD as
| our "daily driver"
| Steltek wrote:
| Mmmm, how much of the electric side is actually
| serviceable? I think you're confusing e-bikes with regular
| bikes. The electric side is probably entirely off limits to
| people and what you're experiencing is the vestigial
| aspects of the regular bike underneath.
| kfarr wrote:
| Yes good point, it's really bikes that I love
| CountDrewku wrote:
| That's because it's a normal bike other than the motor
| itself.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Just make sure you don't short out those batteries.
| giobox wrote:
| As someone who own's a Tern GSD and a Tern Vektron too,
| I've found the unserviceable Bosch electric drivetrain to
| not be refreshingly serviceable at all.
|
| This may have changed in year since I last had to look and
| might vary by region, but in US Bosch have been incredibly
| strict about parts and software tools for the motors - only
| approved dealers can order a brand new replacement motor,
| for example. You cannot order one as private individual
| easily (much like a Tesla...). That's unheard of for bike
| parts generally speaking.
|
| For sure, all of the parts that are shared with traditional
| non e-bikes (group sets, brakes, wheels, etc etc) are still
| easily privately serviceable by end user. The Bosch
| electric drivetrain, not so much.
| kfarr wrote:
| Good points all around, I have luckily not had to deal
| with the electric drivetrain
| sjwalter wrote:
| The reason I really like the idea of a crate motor is because one
| of my pet peeves about new vehicles, and EVs and Teslas in
| particular, is that they seem to invariably turn your vehicle
| into an always-connected, auto-updating tablet, with zero
| privacy.
|
| Partly why I like my older truck--it's got no modem, no screens
| other than a little clock, and nobody in any large corporation
| knows exactly where I drive it every moment of the day.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| Do you use paper maps to figure out where you are going and
| stop at payphones to make calls?
| ehnto wrote:
| Can you drive from home to work without being hand held by
| technological pacifiers?
| standardUser wrote:
| You drive in complete silence? Or were you just singling
| out only _specific_ forms of technology with which to mock
| a stranger?
| esalman wrote:
| I sometimes drive in complete silence. The friction
| between the tires and the asphalt is close to white
| noise. It contains a range of high and low frequencies
| that you can't easily filter out, something that I tried
| to deal with at a computer vision class project involving
| self-driving tech. Also it can be amazingly therapeutic.
| ehnto wrote:
| They were mocking someone for choosing to do without
| technology, it was just a snippy retort. Why aren't you
| jumping down their throat?
|
| edit: Turns out I was wrong about the parent's intent.
| For what it's worth, I do actually drive in silence a
| lot. There is something about a vehicle in transit that
| temporarily relieves you of responsibilities outside of
| the drive, and it's a great time to reflect. I could
| reflect on this comment thread, for example. Two times in
| the past few months I've been wrong about someone's
| intent on HN and met them with a little too much spice
| than was fair, that's worth reflecting on.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I do. Is this unusual?
| qq4 wrote:
| I drive in silence. I don't understand why some people
| feel the need to _always_ be listening to something.
| nindalf wrote:
| This is unnecessarily rude. Implying that a person needs a
| pacifier like an infant is snarky.
|
| > please don't sneer
|
| As the HN guidelines
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) say.
| ehnto wrote:
| It was a counterpoint to his sneer, I felt like it was a
| productive re-contextualization of their narrow
| viewpoint. I am really surprised people seem to be
| missing the parent comments snark but not mine, it was
| really on the nose.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| I was sincerely not trying to be snarky. I'm sorry you
| took it that way. I am actually GenX, so I know all too
| well what it was like back in the days of paper maps and
| pay phones. I couldn't imagine going back as they seem
| barbaric now.
| ehnto wrote:
| Ah, my sincerest apologies. I guess it was hard for me to
| see it through any other lens, I was very much expecting
| a technophile versus traditionalist discourse to break
| out in this thread and so I was primed to read your words
| just one way. I even re-read your comment after others
| were discussing mine to make sure I wasn't being an idiot
| and was still certain. I suppose I was being an idiot!
|
| Sorry again, I shouldn't have been snarky in either case,
| I was just so darn ready to have that discussion.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| Thanks for the apology ehnto. My OP should have been more
| clear in its intent.
| nindalf wrote:
| If you see someone sneering, then request them not to
| sneer. Link them to the HN guidelines. Counter-sneering
| ruins the discussion.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you're not dang, isn't linking to the guidelines
| against the guidelines?
| detaro wrote:
| why would it be?
| dylan604 wrote:
| because it serves no real purpose except to make the
| person doing the referencing feel a bit smug
| amarshall wrote:
| This is missing the point, I think. The point is not to be
| disconnected entirely, it's to have control over that
| connection. While driving, one can turn off their phone, run
| a fully open-source device, old-school GPS, or whatever. But
| cars don't give much if any control over the software they're
| running or their broader connectivity. They're oft becoming
| highly-integrated proprietary devices.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| Good point, but can't your phone's location still be
| tracked when powered off?
| amarshall wrote:
| Maybe, but in the most paranoid case it's a lot more
| practical and straightforward to put a small device in a
| faraday cage or remove the battery than doing so for the
| car being actively driven.
| sjwalter wrote:
| Exactly one phone on the market, the latest and greatest
| Apple phone, has this capability.
|
| So, no. My flipphone can't be tracked when the battery is
| taken out.
| amarshall wrote:
| This functionality can be disabled in Settings, though.
| dqpb wrote:
| Before iPhones, humans had a rather impressive ability to
| create a mental map of a city. Upon seeing or hearing an
| address, they could rapidly plan a path to the location with
| nothing more than their own mind!
| sjwalter wrote:
| I do use paper maps as my phone doesn't support apps or maps.
|
| They're surprisingly useful.
|
| Payphones, nope. Still got a flip phone. Yep, can be used to
| track me, but I don't take it everywhere.
|
| Also, your position seems to be something like, If you can't
| be perfectly private from every possible angle, any choice
| enhancing privacy imperfectly is silly. I don't agree with
| that.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| >Also, your position seems to be something like, If you
| can't be perfectly private from every possible angle, any
| choice enhancing privacy imperfectly is silly.
|
| That wasn't my position. I'm sorry it was easy to assume it
| was. I was saying that it is very impractical to drive
| without a smartphone and that it is tracking you in a more
| ubiquitous way.
| sjwalter wrote:
| >I was saying that it is very impractical to drive
| without a smartphone
|
| Dude, I think you should really question this. I've been
| smartphone free for over a year. It's... easy. In fact,
| easier than having a smartphone in many ways!
|
| So strange how quickly our society became psychologically
| chained to these blipping bleeping distracting infernal
| machines.
| claytoneast wrote:
| Out of curiosity, do you have to use another device for
| TOTP 2F?
| flyinghamster wrote:
| I've sometimes considered going back to a flip phone as a
| daily driver. I've settled instead for treating the
| smartphone as a tool rather than a lifestyle. If I'm not
| using it for navigation, location gets turned off. I
| don't do discussion forums on it, general web surfing is
| right out, and anything from Facebook got ripped out when
| I bought it (with one thing that couldn't be removed
| getting disabled).
|
| A side benefit is that I get 2-3 days' life out of my
| battery and still have about 30% left when I plug it in.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| >I was saying that it is very impractical to drive
| without a smartphone and that it is tracking you in a
| more ubiquitous way.
|
| As someone who has stuck with a flip phone all along, its
| extremely practical. We had no trouble getting around
| before smartphones, and its still no trouble.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| If you're trying to hide from the government, sure. But
| if you're trying to keep companies from sharing your
| data, keeping it limited to the phone does keep the same
| data in fewer hands.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| >I was saying that it is very impractical to drive
| without a smartphone
|
| Man, I remember driving in the 80s, we just wandered
| around lost for two decades. I live in West Undershirt,
| PA now because I just happened to end up there when I
| went out for pizza. One time, around 1998, I went to
| visit a friend in Houston. All I had were some sketchy
| instructions given over email, and I ended up a warlord
| ruling over the stretch of I-45 between Juan's Tacos and
| the Sherwin-Williams.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >but I don't take it everywhere.
|
| at least having the option of taking the battery out while
| still taking it with you just in case you do need it is a
| bonus
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| Not trying to be snarky, but if you use your brain to figure
| out where you are going (perhaps referring to paper or
| digital maps before leaving), you learn your route,
| understand the geography of your location, and don't create a
| permanent dependency on being connect to the internet.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| As a consultant in the 90s, I had to go to hundreds of
| client locations all over the Bay Area. I had a Thomas map
| book for each county and had to waste much brain space and
| time figuring it all out. Going back seems insanely
| primitive.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Maps were downloadable once, maps.me still is. No reason that
| can't continue, besides big brother having a vested interest
| in what you are doing.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Big Brother to me is still the gov't vs individual
| EvilCorps hoovering up data to make a buck. Both could
| still be "the man", but to me Big Brother is specific.
| Maybe I have the term wrong or has it become more
| encompassing?
| sjwalter wrote:
| There isn't much of a difference these days, from where
| I'm sitting. The government and the heads of bigcos are
| pretty much on the same teams.
| dylan604 wrote:
| This is just quite simply sad in how true it is.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Once out, public info:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
| dylan604 wrote:
| EvilCorps are hoovering up a hell of lot more data than I
| voluntarily give them. I give no data voluntarily to FB,
| yet with all of their track bullshit they take it from
| me. I have no idea if a website is using their code or
| not, so by me browsing said website is not me giving them
| my permission. Same with Googs and their analytics.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Both given and generated data are allowed for the
| government to access. I use no-script, but simpler
| extensions are available.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I use options to stop stuff as well, but that's the
| exception to the rule for EvilCorps hoovering up
| unsuspecting data. Even with my attempts at blocking
| other people are submitting information about me as well
| (perhaps unknowingly on their part such is the greed of
| EvilCorp). Again, I did not provide that information
| voluntarily so it should also not fall under the 3rd
| party ruling
| stcredzero wrote:
| I've done this in real life!
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| I have too - back in the 80s-90s. I couldn't imagine going
| back to that. Did you do it in the post smartphone era?
| stcredzero wrote:
| 1st time I drove across the US to see stuff was the
| summer of 1992. I put 10000 miles on the car zig-zagging
| across the country, up the west coast and to Alaska.
| ehnto wrote:
| Exactly my thoughts! It's just an electric motor, it need not
| entangle my automobile in a web of SaaS interconnectivity. I
| think it's a problem the industry over, but EVs are
| particularly afflicted because they still serve the early
| adopters and technophiles.
|
| I'm liking the trend of high-tech unchained lately, I'm seeing
| more instances of really great technology being supplied and
| built with consumer freedom and portability in mind.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Another problem is the ability to "refuel" with privacy as
| well. The fact that the charger identifies your car is a big
| no-no in my book. Also many/most? places demanding an
| account/credit card to pay.
| namlem wrote:
| Can't you just pay with a prepaid card?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Inconvenient but possibly. What about the other issues?
| Do we need charger condoms now as well? :D
| Arrath wrote:
| I expect a charger condom would unfortunately cut out
| useful charger control packets as well as identifying
| information. I would totally use one, otherwise.
| throwawayapples wrote:
| Those generally want ID in order to activate over the
| phone.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >places demanding an account/credit card to pay.
|
| I'm with you on demanding an account. However, if you have
| self-serve chargers that you want to be available 24/7
| while also being unmanned, accepting cash can be
| troublesome. I hate trying to get cash to be accepted by
| automated machines, as they have to have the bill in the
| perfect condition or they just spit it back out at you.
| Also, an unmanned kiosk accepting cash is just asking for
| security issues. Yes, it's just a reverse ATM, but if you
| can avoid it by not storing cash then so much the better
| for them.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >I'm with you on demanding an account. However, if you
| have self-serve chargers that you want to be available
| 24/7 while also being unmanned, accepting cash can be
| troublesome.
|
| Vending machines do just fine.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Vending machines usually don't have to deal with $50-$100
| transactions though.
| ehnto wrote:
| Maybe one day an EV charge from grid fueled by renewables
| will be about as expensive as a can of cola.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Given that right now ICE cars are refilling at a rate
| about as expensive as colas (on a per-gallon basis), it
| seems like could be true. Seems unlikely to be true with
| EVs for a long time however.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Create an engine that actually runs off of cola, and we'd
| be set!
| dylan604 wrote:
| Except they're my main source of ire on not being able
| accept a bill. Also, modern vending machines are now
| accepting cards
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Was thinking more of "gas" station type places, with the
| snacks and cashier. Personally, probably wouldn't charge
| much at mall parking garages and other places where this
| would make sense.
| dylan604 wrote:
| There are gas stations that have 24/7 pumps availble
| while being otherwise totally closed. I was fortunate to
| have this be the case while driving through the desert. I
| was rushing home across country to get to a relative in
| the hospital, and in that mental state totally failed to
| check on fuel levels. When it finally occurred to me at
| 2am, the gauge was precariously low. After a few minutes
| I saw a station up ahead with no lights and totally
| closed. At that point I was preparing myself to sleep in
| the parking lot until they opened. To my luck, pay at the
| pump was available. Probably the most surreal fueling
| experience I've had, but totally saved my butt.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Ok, never seen one myself but glad they exist.
|
| Also, glad that gas purchased by credit-card is that
| thing that exists. Use it myself once in a while, when I
| choose.
|
| Here's the _one and only_ part that is a problem -- >
| requiring it. And by definition identity, time, date,
| location.
| worik wrote:
| Yes. And.
|
| There s a difference in the bank knowing you charged a
| car and the Elon knowing who charged which car.
|
| The first is necessary for making finance work, the
| second is necessary for getting more of your data into
| Elon's hands.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The very first sentence in my first reply was agreeing
| that the concept of requiring an account is was bad--in
| case you missed it or misunderstood.
|
| So, yes and your point is? thanks for playing
| [deleted]
| bradlys wrote:
| Do you mean 24/7 credit card or 24/7 takes cash? Because
| credit card readers built into pumps seems almost
| universally standard. Being able to get gas at any time
| of the day (even if the shop is closed) is very standard.
| It's weird when the pump is not working or doesn't have a
| card reader built in.
| nbzso wrote:
| That's the reason why I postponed selling my Jaguar X308. When
| time comes I will convert it to electric without dependency of
| software-updates over the air, no trackers, and maximum privacy
| and style:)
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Excellent. The PEV revolution could open the way for a
| flourishing of unique autos that support privacy and
| maintainability. Or it could be a DRM locked down dystopia.
| rainbowzootsuit wrote:
| I'm never buying a cyber truck but fitting a motor and battery
| in my 99 Toyota pickup for 1/5 the money sounds appealing.
| pmorici wrote:
| Check out Bollinger Motors. They seem to be doing an electric
| truck but with more traditional dumb controls.
|
| https://bollingermotors.com/
| HWR_14 wrote:
| The zero-privacy is frightening. The ability to (technically
| and buried in the fine print) push an update that makes your
| car stop at every McDonalds or accidentally brick your 50k+
| device is also frightening. Heck, yesterday or the day before
| there were (unconfirmed) stories on HN about an OTA Tesla
| update causing collisions.
|
| You can however retrofit your older truck with a more modern
| radio if you like. You can repair or upgrade a part of it (like
| a side panel) or just rip out the radio and install a new $200
| dollar one that gets digital FM, Bluetooth and USB audio. Oh,
| that's another feature that doesn't exist in Teslas.
| myself248 wrote:
| Bingo, and well said. Buying a Tesla and then ripping out all
| the bits that treat me as the driven rather than the driver,
| would basically leave me with a bare chassis and powertrain
| anyway, and that hardly seems sane.
| wcunning wrote:
| I'm unclear on whether or not this actually lets you avoid
| that. The concept truck seems to have most of the goofy Tesla
| knockoff tablet stuff from the Mustang Mach E that they pulled
| the motor and battery from.
|
| Similarly, I have more than a little trepidation at the quoted
| price point -- does that include the motor and the electronics
| and all the smarts to run both? Do I need their fancy dashboard
| from the concept? Is it included? etc. etc.
|
| Disclaimer: I worked for Ford until the beginning of this year,
| so some of skepticism is likely sour grapes, but some of it is
| because I saw what difficulties there were in changing years
| and years of assumptions on a dime because you went from an ICE
| to a BEV.
| mewse-hn wrote:
| Yeah I saw the photo of the charging port where the gas cap
| would usually be and also wondered how much is in the kit
| with the crate motor
| MonaroVXR wrote:
| Do you have some more insights in Ford in this subject or any
| other thing. I am interested in cars. (Hence my name I guess,
| which wasn't really a well thought out name.)
|
| Genuine interests.
|
| Greetings
| sbierwagen wrote:
| >does that include the motor and the electronics and all the
| smarts to run both?
|
| Nope: https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/M-9000-MACHE
|
| >Does NOT include: Traction inverter, Control system, Battery
| Kirby64 wrote:
| It should. All you need is to provide it the high voltage
| input, and an ECU to control the motor. None of those need to
| be integrated into the 'giant tablet', they aren't even
| integrated into that tablet on Tesla vehicles, either.
|
| I assume what you'd get with the crate motor is similar to
| what you'd get with any crate motor: You get the motor, the
| transmission (probably, since it's usually part of an EV
| motor package), the drive circuitry, and that's about it.
| ECU, HV battery, drive axles, etc are on your nickel.
| a_ba wrote:
| This, but not "only" privacy.
|
| It will be interesting to see how the larger issue of
| "ownership" is going to play out in an iCar (TM) world .
| Considering that you may still legally own the car but you're
| only licensing out your car manufacturer's software, it doesn't
| take much imagination of getting physically restrained by your
| cars' over the air capabilities:
|
| - Missed an installment on your lease/financing plan? ->
| Grounded - Took your car in for service at an non-authorized
| shop? (think Apple disabling third party charging equipment) ->
| Grounded - (Some malicious actor injecting ransomware ->
| Grounded)
| zamfi wrote:
| Vehicles are already far more regulated than smartphones,
| it's not a stretch to imagine that "turning off your car" for
| something like taking it to a non-authorized shop should be
| illegal. (Utilities, for example, can't turn off your heat in
| winter for nonpayment in many states.)
|
| That said, Deere's made a business of it, so what do I know?
| natch wrote:
| Except the post you said "This" to is wrong on almost all
| counts about how updates work. Updates are opt in.
| Accujack wrote:
| Yeah. Tesla is pretty much the apple computer of the electric
| vehicle world, and they've set a bad precedent for ownership
| of electric cars.
|
| I think if market forces are allowed to decide fairly (they
| won't be) that consumers will choose a vehicle they own and
| have the right to repair over a Tesla that's licensed and can
| be bricked remotely at any time.
| burnt_toast wrote:
| Spot on. I drive an old Cherokee and I love it. I hope to
| someday convert it to electric when the time comes while
| retaining it's utilitarian design.
| smileysteve wrote:
| This will be useful in the boating industry as well.
|
| Most inland waterway inboards use marin-ized crate engines;
| often this is the Chevy line (v6, v8s), but the Ford Raptor V8
| provided a nice alternative in ~2016.
|
| 281HP is also right in line with the market ~280-320hp.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Where would you plug it in?
| bretpiatt wrote:
| You don't: https://www.pontooners.com/solar-powered-
| pontoon-boats/
| stickfigure wrote:
| You will not successfully solar-power a 281hp motor.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Presumably docks have shore power connections.
| smileysteve wrote:
| It's not ucommon to have AC installed to
| docks/piers/marinas. these are useful for lifts (capable of
| lifting up to 10k lbs), accessories (AC, refrigerators,
| microwaves for cabin cruisers).
|
| Electric boats are more common in Europe, Correct Craft
| makes the 220e in its lineup this year.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Here in the US, I've never seen a slip with anything
| other than a 120v connection. And I'm pretty sure you'd
| pop circuits like crazy if more than a few boats on a
| dock tried to draw the full amperage.
|
| It makes more sense in Europe where you already have
| 240v. But the marinas here just aren't set up for this.
| stephencanon wrote:
| Friend here did an electric conversion of a pontoon boat as a
| covid lockdown hobby project. Got an electric marine motor
| from china, bank of batteries at the stern and a modest solar
| panel (his dock is north/south, so he can tie up with it
| facing south). Range is a few tens of miles, but it's a
| pontoon boat, that's plenty for a nice afternoon cruise on
| the river. The fact that it's almost totally silent is
| perfect for the application. Recharges on its own in a day or
| two, no shore connection needed.
| smileysteve wrote:
| Yes, pontoon cruising is a good candidate; Many (non
| watersports) in this audience are most comfortable between
| 2.5mph and 20mph.
|
| *Though pontoons in the last 20 years have moved to
| planing.
| mcguire wrote:
| Any videos/blogs? I am seriously interested.
| notjulianjaynes wrote:
| Not OP, and this is about a catamaran, but it is a
| satisfying video about building an electric boat.
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6BMskpsLiYA
| natch wrote:
| >always-connected, auto-updating tablet
|
| Updates are a good thing. Since you said "Teslas in particular"
| you are misinformed about them being auto updating. It is true
| that they do automatically download the updates, but the
| updates are opt in.
|
| Also, Tesla allows opt out for data collection from the car.
|
| In fact, it seems like you will be very surprised to learn, the
| default setting value is opt out.
|
| They also do collect a lot of driving data that they do not
| associate with the VIN or any other identifier, in my
| understanding.
|
| You could argue that when the driver opts in to anonymous data
| collection (again, no identification of the vehicle, etc.) it
| is still getting exterior pictures of their home and driveway.
| OK. But, opt in.
|
| There are tradeoffs. You allow collection of some data, or
| not... up to you. That seems like a fair setup to me.
|
| >invariably turn your vehicle into an always-connected, auto-
| updating tablet, with zero privacy.
|
| "Invariably"... no. "Always connected"... no. Often connected,
| certainly. "Auto-updating"... no. "Zero privacy"... no. This
| seems like a really poorly informed take, when it's opt out by
| default. Yet you currently have the top comment in this
| article.
| [deleted]
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| > the default setting is opt out
|
| That's called opt-in.
| natch wrote:
| You're making a framing error but I see I could have been
| more clear. The term opt-in is used to describe the entire
| scheme as a UX concept. The setting value itself (opt in
| versus opt out) is a concept at a different level.
|
| To be more clear I should have said "the default setting
| value is opt out"... fixed; thank you.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Buying an electric car is turning into "buying into the Apple
| business model applied to cars"
| zamfi wrote:
| Do you avoid carrying your phone with you too, to avoid a large
| corporation with a known predilection for cooperating with law
| enforcement knowing where you are at all times?
|
| Honest question.
| throwawayapples wrote:
| It's easier to leave your phone at home or in a faraday bag
| than putting your vehicle in either. If your phone is part of
| your vehicle, it's pretty hard to go anywhere without them.
| samsolomon wrote:
| This is why I love Bollinger's approach to trucks. They are
| electric, but focused on utility and simplicity.
|
| https://bollingermotors.com/
|
| While likely way more than I would ever pay for a vehicle, I
| appreciate the approach to design.
|
| EDIT: If you've got a little time to kill. There are some
| videos on youtube that give a better idea of what these trucks
| look like.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHOuenVXPig
| sjwalter wrote:
| Had never heard of them but they look awesome. I'm in love
| with boxy-looking utility vehicles lately. These look like a
| less gaudy version of the Mercedes G-Wagon and appeal to my
| sensibilities.
|
| Thanks!
| stcredzero wrote:
| A lot of pickups are boxy. The Cybertruck isn't exactly
| svelte, but it apparently has much better aero and mileage.
| I've been wondering for awhile: Would a sloped bed cover
| going from the top of the cab to the gate increase the
| mileage of any pickup truck by some whopping amount? It
| seems like the aero would go from "ginormously" bad, to
| just "meh," which could still be a lot.
| Applejinx wrote:
| With the right kind of aerodynamics you can get a sort of
| bubble of air of roughly the right shape. Having a hard
| surface of that shape (wouldn't be exactly sloped as much
| as a bubble shape without discontinuities on the trailing
| edge) would be optimal, but you get 'ginormously bad' by
| having a sharp discontinuity without any turbulence
| generation.
|
| That can be either the little nubs of high performance
| cars, or something like Airtabs that are meant for big-
| rig trucks. And either way you don't get to increase the
| mileage by a whopping amount as there are still probably
| shape issues on the leading edge of the vehicle, plus
| sheer surface area. To do amazing streamlining the whole
| thing has to be a bubble, including the front edge of the
| vehicle.
| mcguire wrote:
| Probably.
|
| The tonneau cover industry likes to quote a senior-thesis
| type paper from university engineering students that even
| one of those improves aerodynamics by 10%.
|
| And modern trucks aren't as bad as they used to be.
| lostapathy wrote:
| Modern trucks are better than they used to be, but they
| seem to give most of the efficiency back in terms of
| larger towing/payload capacity. It's absolutely bonkers
| how capable a "half ton pickup" can be equipped compared
| to 20 years ago.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Wouldn't be street legal here, by the looks of it. No safety
| for pedestrians. Pure killer machine.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Interesting, talks about stripped-down simplicity... $125K.
| :-/
| InitialLastName wrote:
| When you look at it, it's truly astonishing (well, maybe
| not) what economies of scale one can achieve going from
| ~10k EAU to ~1M EAU (with up to 5M across other models to
| amortize engineering and common parts).
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Yes, but thought the electric car part market should have
| scaled by now. That leaves a smaller job of building the
| chassis. By how boxy it is should be easy pretty shortly.
| Hopefully price will come down quickly, because a simple
| no-telemetry e-vehicle is what I'm interested it.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| It isn't the electric car parts that are necessarily the
| bit that need to scale, though. The custom-manufactured
| sheet metal goes from being made out of house to owning
| your own metal-pressing facilities. The screws, fittings
| and hardware goes from "what we can buy off the shelf or
| pay to make custom" to "what's on the shelf was made
| initially for us". Same story for electronics.
|
| It's not even just the input materials that are helped by
| two-order-of-magnitude scale differences; assembly is
| also affected. Say you're considering a $100k robot to
| replace some assembly step that is currently done by a
| $10/hr human. At Bollinger-scale, that robot needs to
| save an hour of labor for each unit to pay for itself in
| a year. At Ford scale, it needs to save 36 seconds.
|
| Past that, engineering is affected too. At Bollinger, a
| $100k/year engineer can pay their own salary by shaving
| $10 off the unit cost. At Ford, that same engineer pays
| their salary if they reduce the unit cost by $0.1.
|
| Lastly, there are huge NRE's that are inherent to
| developing a car for sale (or any product, really) that
| scale very sublinearly with volume (think regulatory
| compliance and crash testing, prototyping, tooling etc),
| but that are amortized much more quickly at 1M EAU than
| 10K EAU.
|
| Given all that, it's astonishing that they are
| (hopefully) bringing this design to market at only ~2x
| the street price of the mass-produced competition.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Could be because a number of parts are made to be easily
| removable, such as all of that glass.
|
| Could be that is the cost of an EV that doesn't spy on you
| or sell subscription features.
|
| Most likely, that's the result of zero savings from the
| economies of scale that tesla and Ford have built up.
| crocodiletears wrote:
| We're moving towards a state where simplicity and privacy
| is the province of the affluent. A simple, reliable product
| doesn't make for a repeat customer. If you buy what the
| Bollinger claims to be, you'll probably take care of it,
| and won't want to trade it in for a new model every year or
| three. Ideally they don't get to market your telematics
| data either. That gives them all of one chance to extract
| the product's value from you. Add that to the small
| production runs of a niche vehicle, and the price makes a
| depressing amount of sense.
| adolph wrote:
| "But It For Life" is a double-niched category: from the
| limited number of consumers interested and educated in
| the value proposition and from the entrepreneurs willing
| to build the companies and muster the investors who
| aren't turned off by the promise of slow and small
| growth.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I feel like the investors are the hard part there, not
| the consumers. For instance, all pay software seems to be
| moving towards a subscription service, and that's not a
| consumer-led movement.
| Accujack wrote:
| >We're moving towards a state where simplicity and
| privacy is the province of the affluent.
|
| No, not really.
|
| The problem of the wealthy being inherently unequal in
| the US at least is a consequence of our corrupt
| government.
|
| The law in the US needs to catch up to the computer age
| regarding privacy (or at least equal the GDPR).
|
| It's not a societal tendency, it's a direct consequence
| of money having far too much influence in our governing
| institutions.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Seems like the grandparent is describing what-is and you
| are what-should-be. Two different things, not necessarily
| in conflict.
| coenhyde wrote:
| I really like the Bollinger. For the same reasons as you. I'd
| buy it instead of the Cybertruck if it was price competitive.
| But I'm not going to pay $50k more just to avoid the smarts
| of a Cybertruck.
| dexterdog wrote:
| We still have no idea when cybertruck will ever exist nor
| do we know what it will cost.
| turtlebits wrote:
| To be fair, neither one exists.
| dekerta wrote:
| Cool product, but that website sucks. I can't read the
| paragraph half-way down the landing page because their shitty
| custom scrolling handler keeps skipping past it.
|
| Why do some webdevs think they need to re-invent scrolling?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| This my friend is a deeper problem in our society, not
| limited to web design. Literally everything sucks if you
| look at it with a certain pragmatic and utilitarian lens.
| It's optimized for marketing. We're deranged, confused and
| unable to function properly - our eyesight has just been
| limited to quarterly earnings. Our ancestors from 1950s
| would be appalled at the state of current products and
| services.
| uxp100 wrote:
| People who were adults in 1950 are often still alive. I
| don't know that the ones I know have strong opinions
| either way. They certainly like iPads after never getting
| the hang of computers...
| 01100011 wrote:
| > nobody in any large corporation knows exactly where I drive
| it every moment of the day
|
| You took off your license plate?
|
| https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/location-trac...
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| No, but its amazing how easily it can get smeared with some
| mud.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| You can disable the radio in a Tesla.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Ford trucks from 1950 are beautiful. Would be awesome to see more
| of these rescued and kept around.
|
| https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/422001427562869039/
| KZerda wrote:
| The first question that comes to mind here is if Ford's going to
| offer a crate battery pack too. A crate motor in and of itself is
| huge, but an electric crate powertrain that's equivalent to GM's
| Connect and Cruise, would be huge for people looking for a mostly
| drop-in electric conversion.
| protomyth wrote:
| I would imagine the answer will be yes. I would suspect that GM
| and Honda will also have electric crate motors on the way.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Maybe not Honda, the Japanese manufactures blew decade
| betting on hydrogen. They are now years behind other
| manufactures who decided in a single meeting (all that is
| needed) that hydrogen was a stupid route to take.
| protomyth wrote:
| I have faith Honda will figure it out. Their ICE crate
| motors are first rate and I expect their quality will not
| slip going to electric.
|
| Hydrogen research will probably serve their aircraft
| division well since it looks like that is the solution
| Airbus is backing.
| jdhn wrote:
| If this happens (and it should), I would expect them to target
| the Mustang crowd first, simply because so many have been made
| and the Mustang performance mod scene is very strong.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Ideally the base battery pack would fit where fuel tanks are
| with additional packs connected to a power management unit
| for extra range.
|
| On the Mustang case, more carefully design would be needed to
| make sure the weight distribution doesn't make it worse.
| While driving in straight lines seem to be a popular sport,
| one would expect their car to be able to corner as well.
| viburnum wrote:
| Where would the battery go? I have a soft spot for old trucks
| and would love to have an electrified one someday.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| There's a ton of space on an old truck or van, most body on
| frame vehicles for that matter. It's really a non-issue.
| nine_k wrote:
| Room is a non-issue.
|
| Having a ready-made, mountable, right-sized battery pack(s)
| for retrofitting is an issue, and may be a lucrative niche.
| AshleyGrant wrote:
| And a niche that will definitely see players working to
| fill, if the last 100 years or so of aftermarket & tuner
| culture teaches us anything.
|
| The first things I did when I bought a BMW convertible
| about 10 years ago was order BMW specific aftermarket
| wheels from a company that only sells wheels for BMWs. I
| also ordered aftermarket electronics from two companies
| that only market to BMW enthusiasts.
|
| There will definitely be companies coming out with bolt-
| on battery packs for things like Jeep Wranglers and old
| trucks like this F-100. If bolt-on isn't possible, then
| it will be kits that the engineering has already been
| done and you just need to measure and weld on the mounts
| and then bolt on the battery pack and run the wiring.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Between the frame rails underneath the cab. Trucks are
| different from cars (unibody design, like a shell) in that
| they are body-on-frame. It looks like a giant ladder and they
| are generally 6-8" tall or more for HD trucks. You would
| create your own "skateboard" if you will then lower the
| original cab back down on top.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| That does appear to be where Ford tucked the batteries for
| this one, this not-so-great video[1] does slide under and
| show them briefly. Not sure how it has two motors though, I
| thought the whole point of crate motors was as a drop in
| replacement for the existing engine (plus of course then
| they'd cost $7,800, before the batteries).
|
| 1: https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/11/03/ford-f100
| -ele...
| jpindar wrote:
| That video clearly shows one motor between the front
| wheels and one between the rear wheels.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| Sorry, I meant "seems like not such a great advertisement
| for DIY conversions if it completely changes the way the
| drivetrain works (and costs twice as much as the price of
| one crate motor, never mind the battery etc.)".
| chrisdhoover wrote:
| Yes trucks are ideal for a conversion
| asmos7 wrote:
| this is like moving a mountain - yea on paper it works but
| good luck actually doing it
| whalesalad wrote:
| With that attitude - yes!
|
| I grew up working on cars. It's really not that hard,
| especially with electric vehicles/retrofitting. The cab
| is attached to the frame with like 6 bolts. This is a
| very common practice in shops working on trucks -
| sometimes it is easiest to just lift the entire cab to
| work on the truck.
|
| Photo: https://www.dieselworldmag.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2017/02/01...
|
| Doing restomod work is a lot of fun if you are into that
| sort of thing. You get to play 'car designer' and rebuild
| a totally new vehicle/powertrain while trying to make it
| look original.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| And like moving a mountain, you do it one step at a time.
| I've done body lifts -- remove truck body, insert
| spacers, replace truck body -- with just a jack and a
| couple of 2x4's. Not hard, just takes time and patience.
| mywittyname wrote:
| This is work, for sure, but honestly, it's one of the
| easiest chassis fabrications that someone can undertake.
| It's a box that sits between frame rails. You'll have to
| make considerations for chassis flex and ensuring it can
| handle the weight, but those are relatively easy.
| blitzar wrote:
| My first idea would be just to drop it in where the fuel tank
| is / was. Someone will probably make a fuel tank shaped
| battery at some point.
| onychomys wrote:
| Problem with that is that a fuel tank is very small
| compared to the equivalent battery size.
| blitzar wrote:
| My maths has it at approx 10,000 cubic inches of battery
| weighing in at 450kg, which rought and dirty is a 43
| gallon tank (I may be way out) which is around 120kg of
| petrol.
|
| Looks like standard is around 26 gallons (up to 36) so
| not miles away on volume, call it 1.5x. Wight and how you
| distribute it are going to be the real issue here at
| 3.75x the density.
| tejohnso wrote:
| That interior image is gross. It's like they built the cheapest
| dash / interior they could, then found a big iPad to
| incongruously glue onto the middle of the dash and called it a
| day. I hope it's just prototyping for the concept.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've been joking that I was going to find a way to mount my
| iPad to the handle bars of my eBike since that seems to be a
| requirement for EVs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-04 23:01 UTC)