Big Ford EV Announcement Coming Aug 11th

[SC Maintenance]

The world is not ready for an EV pickup, at least with current technology. Maybe ever?

This is an excellent question. Half the contractors towing lawn mowers or a small trailer has a superduty that is lifted - so what $80K? Do you really need a brodozer to tow a lawnmower or a miter saw? Doesn't matter. There not buying an EV either likely.

Then you have the corporate types - they seem to run either a stripped Taco or Fronty with a cap. Starting to see a few with a Maverick. The exterminators, pool service, window cleaning types. An EV might work for them, but now someone needs to remember to plug it in. Can hear all the excuses now. Not worth the effort / savings / risk. Give bubba a gas card and send him off to the next job.

EV in the commercial world doesn't particularly solve any problems for anyone.

 

[Torrid]

This is an excellent question. Half the contractors towing lawn mowers or a small trailer has a superduty that is lifted - so what $80K? Do you really need a brodozer to tow a lawnmower or a miter saw? Doesn't matter. There not buying an EV either likely.

Of course not. For that matter I may have chose an EV for my use, but there's no reason to take the fastest model of the car I chose, its just what I wanted. Brodozers are stupid, but I bet they really love their trucks too.

 

[JeffKeryk]

This is an excellent question. Half the contractors towing lawn mowers or a small trailer has a superduty that is lifted - so what $80K? Do you really need a brodozer to tow a lawnmower or a miter saw? Doesn't matter. There not buying an EV either likely.

Then you have the corporate types - they seem to run either a stripped Taco or Fronty with a cap. Starting to see a few with a Maverick. The exterminators, pool service, window cleaning types. An EV might work for them, but now someone needs to remember to plug it in. Can hear all the excuses now. Not worth the effort / savings / risk. Give bubba a gas card and send him off to the next job.

EV in the commercial world doesn't particularly solve any problems for anyone.

I believe it is simple and is no different than a sedan choice. What is your use case?
Now, don't get me wrong, I think the Cybertruk a big fat result of hubris. The Lightning is probably close to $100K, dunno for sure.

A right sized PU or work van that operates in stop and go traffic, for up to about 150 miles per day might be a great choice for a crew. Especially here with our gas prices! Additionally, be mindful of insurance cost differences as well. Charge overnight when the rates are low.

Of course that requires being at least somewhat practical (and logical). How many people buy what they really need, from a Porsche, Model 3 Performance, Caddy, BMW, you name it? Who needs a $100K Bro Dozer or butt ugly Cybertruk?

Yet that's the market today.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I believe it is simple and is no different than a sedan choice. What is your use case?
Now, don't get me wrong, I think the Cybertruk a big fat result of hubris. The Lightning is probably close to $100K, dunno for sure.

A right sized PU or work van that operates in stop and go traffic, for up to about 150 miles per day might be a great choice for a crew. Especially here with our gas prices! Additionally, be mindful of insurance cost differences as well. Charge overnight when the rates are low.

Of course that requires being at least somewhat practical (and logical). How many people buy what they really need, from a Porsche, Model 3 Performance, Caddy, BMW, you name it? Who needs a $100K Bro Dozer or butt ugly Cybertruk?

Yet that's the market today.

The truck usually goes home with the driver. Not always of course, but often. So now you have a charging issue.

If they are stored at a central location you could charge, but your cost savings would be minimal anyway, and fuel is 100% written off, as is electricity of course, but one broken charge cable and the truck can't work tomorrow costs a year of fuel savings. Its also why the big fleats tend to swap units out fairly frequently. Also in most of the country Nighttime electricity is not appreciably cheaper anyway - maybe a couple cents kWh.

Everything is about use case of course. Delivery driver, in the city - so nothing but stop and go then maybe.

Not saying its not possible - but businesses have lots of problems already without having to create new ones. Individual owner can experiment if they like, but fleets are pretty conservative in their choices.

 

[buster]

I think battery tech will have to advanced significantly before EV's make it into the commercial/work truck space.

 

[Snagglefoot]

you call that a Ford truck, mate?

View attachment 313764

Ho Ho Ho.

 

[Brons2]

This is an excellent question. Half the contractors towing lawn mowers or a small trailer has a superduty that is lifted - so what $80K? Do you really need a brodozer to tow a lawnmower or a miter saw? Doesn't matter. There not buying an EV either likely.

Then you have the corporate types - they seem to run either a stripped Taco or Fronty with a cap. Starting to see a few with a Maverick. The exterminators, pool service, window cleaning types. An EV might work for them, but now someone needs to remember to plug it in. Can hear all the excuses now. Not worth the effort / savings / risk. Give bubba a gas card and send him off to the next job.

EV in the commercial world doesn't particularly solve any problems for anyone.

If you go on the Lightning forums, those contractors out there that do use these trucks, love them. They save a ton of money on fuel. Of course the range has to work for where they are going.

A lot of these scenarios like "someone forgot to plug it in" are pretty contrived. Did the same employee forget to plug in the electric tools they will need for their job? Maybe in that case you have an employee problem, not a vehicle problem.

I'm not suggesting the usage of these trucks for contractors shouldn't be carefully considered, the use case must make sense. But to say it doesn't solve any problems for anyone, is demonstrably wrong.

 

[OVERKILL]

If they are stored at a central location you could charge, but your cost savings would be minimal anyway, and fuel is 100% written off, as is electricity of course, but one broken charge cable and the truck can't work tomorrow costs a year of fuel savings.

My wife drives around 20,000km/year (~12,400 miles). At let's say an average of 14mpg, that's 886 gallons of fuel; 3,354 litres. At ~$1.50/L that's $5,031.

A Lightning in-town can get around 3-3.5 miles per kWh (4.8-5.6km). Let's assume mixed and go with 4km per kWh, that's 5,000kWh. Overnight rate here is $0.098, so that's $490.

That's less than 1/10th the cost to operate.

An L2 charger is less than $400:
https://www.homedepot.ca/product/de...-amp-120-240-vac-3-84-kw-25ft-cord/1001838970

So I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that the cost savings would be wiped-out by the cost of a charge cable

 

[SC Maintenance]

My wife drives around 20,000km/year (~12,400 miles). At let's say an average of 14mpg, that's 886 gallons of fuel; 3,354 litres. At ~$1.50/L that's $5,031.

A Lightning in-town can get around 3-3.5 miles per kWh (4.8-5.6km). Let's assume mixed and go with 4km per kWh, that's 5,000kWh. Overnight rate here is $0.098, so that's $490.

That's less than 1/10th the cost to operate.

An L2 charger is less than $400:
https://www.homedepot.ca/product/de...-amp-120-240-vac-3-84-kw-25ft-cord/1001838970

So I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that the cost savings would be wiped-out by the cost of a charge cable

Apparently you didn't read my actual post.

If a business fails to charge their truck, and then that truck can't start work on time the next day, they lost all that productivity. Not to mention however many customers they irked or projects they delayed. Lost opportunity cost = how much money they can no longer charge because the truck didn't go to work, not because of the cost of the cable.

Also your numbers are heavily skewed. Even in town modern trucks generally get better than 14mpg unless there running brodozer tires, and no lighting gets 3.5 miles per kwh with the heat or AC on. There is no overnight rate on electricity here, its closer to 14c/kwh and gasoline is $2.50 - $2.80 here dependent on the day.

Either way I don't see actual business jumping on this bandwagon anytime soon. They have enough problems to manage already.

 

[OVERKILL]

Apparently you didn't read my actual post.

If a business fails to charge their truck, and then that truck can't start work on time the next day, they lost all that productivity. Not to mention however many customers they irked or projects they delayed. Lost opportunity cost = how much money they can no longer charge because the truck didn't go to work, not because of the cost of the cable.

I read your post, the idea that a charge cable breaking negates any cost advantage in fuel is absurd. It's significantly less of an issue than an alternator failing, water pump failing, engine eating a lifter...etc. There are all manner of things that can take a vehicle out of service, at least with a charge cable you can just use another charger.

Also your numbers are heavily skewed. Even in town modern trucks generally get better than 14mpg unless there running brodozer tires,.

My Jeep regularly gets 10-12mpg. My wife's RAM definitely gets around 14 and she's on Continental highway tires. A 2WD Silverado 5.3L is EPA rated at 16 city for example:

A contractor getting less than that isn't in any way a reach.

and no lighting gets 3.5 miles per kwh with the heat or AC on.

This guy got 3.5 for in-town, but even if we use his average of 2.6 miles per kWh:
https://www.tomsguide.com/vehicle-t...-flashy-all-electric-pickup-doesnt-disappoint
That's 4.2km per kWh, that's MORE efficient than the 4km per kWh I used for my calculations.

There is no overnight rate on electricity here, its closer to 14c/kwh and gasoline is $2.50 - $2.80 here dependent on the day.

$0.14 changes the charge cost to $700 vs $2,350 for the mid-point of your gas prices, that's still less than 1/3rd the operating price for fuel.

Either way I don't see actual business jumping on this bandwagon anytime soon. They have enough problems to manage already.

But that's a wholly separate point from your argument about operating costs.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I read your post, the idea that a charge cable breaking negates any cost advantage in fuel is absurd. It's significantly less of an issue than an alternator failing, water pump failing, engine eating a lifter...etc. There are all manner of things that can take a vehicle out of service, at least with a charge cable you can just use another charger.

My Jeep regularly gets 10-12mpg. My wife's RAM definitely gets around 14 and she's on Continental highway tires. A 2WD Silverado 5.3L is EPA rated at 16 city for example:
View attachment 314611

A contractor getting less than that isn't in any way a reach.

This guy got 3.5 for in-town, but even if we use his average of 2.6 miles per kWh:
https://www.tomsguide.com/vehicle-t...-flashy-all-electric-pickup-doesnt-disappoint
That's 4.2 miles per km, that's MORE efficient than the 4km per kWh I used for my calculations.

$0.14 changes the charge cost to $700 vs $2,350 for the mid-point of your gas prices, that's still less than 1/3rd the operating price for fuel.

But that's a wholly separate point about your argument about operating costs.

Well there are several fleet managers here and zero of them have mentioned moving to EV's.

Not to mention the significant up front cost increase.

I will let that speak for itself rather than people who have never made a living out of their truck.

Like I said - you didn't read my posts. My post wasn't about operating costs. My post was that the "savings" was not even close to worth it.

Not saying its not possible - but businesses have lots of problems already without having to create new ones. Individual owner can experiment if they like, but fleets are pretty conservative in their choices.

 

[OVERKILL]

Well there are several fleet managers here and zero of them have mentioned moving to EV's.

Not to mention the significant up front cost increase.

I will let that speak for itself rather than people who have never made a living out of their truck.

Like I said - you didn't read my posts. My post wasn't about operating costs. My post was that the "savings" was not even close to worth it.

Now you are just being petty and butt-hurt. You made an argument based on a single hypothetical that claimed to make "the numbers" not work. I've presented the numbers and they don't support your claim.

I read your posts. I disagree with your simplistic framing and a hypothetical that paints the EV option as the only one at risk of suffering mechanical issues and those issues weren't even pertaining to the EV itself but rather its ability to be charged, which is easily circumvented unlike the scenarios I've listed that can take an ICE out of service for an extended period of time. My best friend runs a fleet of 150 school busses, downtime is a fact of life, you plan around it, the fuel source is irrelevant in that calculus.

The reality is there are likely other factors that, even with lower operating costs, including all possible sources of downtime, are driving the purchase decisions of fleet managers. One of those could be the up-front capital required, but on the flip-side, the electricians I often see driving around in an F-150 Platinum likely aren't struggling with that factor, so it may be platform/technology comfort, trip distance/remoteness...etc. for certain trades. In large fleets, serviceability is a factor and I could see that being an issue with EV's where special training and equipment is required to deal with and around the battery packs. Major engine work, including swaps, is done on busses, van chassis, truck chassis and other service vehicles at the depot. Introducing EV's into that environment changes things and having to deal with a dealership or the OEM, special training...etc. That's a big undertaking. Change brings with it risk, and fleet managers are by nature risk-averse.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Now you are just being petty and butt-hurt. You made an argument based on a single hypothetical that claimed to make "the numbers" not work. I've presented the numbers and they don't support your claim.

I read your posts. I disagree with your simplistic framing and a hypothetical that paints the EV option as the only one at risk of suffering mechanical issues and those issues weren't even pertaining to the EV itself but rather its ability to be charged, which is easily circumvented unlike the scenarios I've listed that can take an ICE out of service for an extended period of time. My best friend runs a fleet of 150 school busses, downtime is a fact of life, you plan around it, the fuel source is irrelevant in that calculus.

The reality is there are likely other factors that, even with lower operating costs, including all possible sources of downtime, are driving the purchase decisions of fleet managers. One of those could be the up-front capital required, but on the flip-side, the electricians I often see driving around in an F-150 Platinum likely aren't struggling with that factor, so it may be platform/technology comfort, trip distance/remoteness...etc. for certain trades. In large fleets, serviceability is a factor and I could see that being an issue with EV's where special training and equipment is required to deal with and around the battery packs. Major engine work, including swaps, is done on busses, van chassis, truck chassis and other service vehicles at the depot. Introducing EV's into that environment changes things and having to deal with a dealership or the OEM, special training...etc. That's a big undertaking. Change brings with it risk, and fleet managers are by nature risk-averse.

Your the one that is butt hurt because you didn't even read my posts which makes your math irrelevant.

Even if those twisted numbers were in fact accurate in most places (high gas prices, low electricity prices) it still makes no sense.
My posts were that fleets were not going to jump to EV's because the potential fuel savings was not even close to worth the added potential problems.

100% of what your trying to argue I already covered in this one post. So whatever.

The truck usually goes home with the driver. Not always of course, but often. So now you have a charging issue.

If they are stored at a central location you could charge, but your cost savings would be minimal anyway, and fuel is 100% written off, as is electricity of course, but one broken charge cable and the truck can't work tomorrow costs a year of fuel savings. Its also why the big fleats tend to swap units out fairly frequently. Also in most of the country Nighttime electricity is not appreciably cheaper anyway - maybe a couple cents kWh.

Everything is about use case of course. Delivery driver, in the city - so nothing but stop and go then maybe.

Not saying its not possible - but businesses have lots of problems already without having to create new ones. Individual owner can experiment if they like, but fleets are pretty conservative in their choices.

 

[Torrid]

Your the one that is butt hurt because you didn't even read my posts which makes your math irrelevant.

Even if those twisted numbers were in fact accurate in most places (high gas prices, low electricity prices) it still makes no sense.
My posts were that fleets were not going to jump to EV's because the potential fuel savings was not even close to worth the added potential problems.

100% of what your trying to argue I already covered in this one post. So whatever.

Does every post here have to end with going back and forth with hypothetical gotcha?

As for the matter of a broken cable, I have two backups on hand just in case since anything can happen. The world doesn't end because of a EVSE failure unless you fail to plan.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Does every post here have to end with going back and forth with hypothetical gotcha?

As for the matter of a broken cable, I have two backups on hand just in case since anything can happen. The world doesn't end because of a EVSE failure unless you fail to plan.

It was one example of many I gave. I said it could work for an individual. I said it might work for delivery. But in general the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Does every post about EV's are awesome around here have to end that any use case that is not ideal for EV's is wrong. Like someone didn't try hard enough.

The lightning came and went. Fleets didn't want it. 9 out of 10 EV purists that have never run a fleet or made there living out of a truck disagree.

 

[Torrid]

It was one example of many I gave. I said it could work for an individual. I said it might work for delivery. But in general the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Does every post about EV's are awesome around here have to end that any use case that is not ideal for EV's is wrong. Like someone didn't try hard enough.

The lightning came and went. Fleets didn't want it. 9 out of 10 EV purists that have never run a fleet or made there living out of a truck disagree.

You sound emotionally invested in the outcome of this thread.

 

[OVERKILL]

Your the one that is butt hurt because you didn't even read my posts which makes your math irrelevant.

How am I butt hurt? I'm not the one who deflected to the petty "I will let that speak for itself rather than people who have never made a living out of their truck." rather than continuing to engage on the points made.

You crafted an incredibly fragile strawman that claimed to negate any of the OPEX savings from the EV truck that was predicated on the impossible premise that nothing could take an ICE truck out of service in a similar manner. You initially engaged on the math, which was at least an honest effort, but then when that wasn't working, got huffy and defaulted to claiming I didn't read your posts.

Even if those numbers twisted numbers were in fact accurate in most places (high gas prices, low electricity prices) it still makes no sense.

And here you are engaging with at least one of my points again You are right, it probably doesn't make sense for many fleets, and I said as much, but it's not due to the potential impact of a failed charge cable.

My posts were that fleets were not going to jump to EV's because the potential fuel savings was not even close to worth the added potential problems.

100% of what your trying to argue I already covered in this one post. So whatever.

The potential fuel savings could be considerable. Let's say you have 50 trucks and we'll use your numbers for fuel costs and electricity, that's $82,500. That's somebody's entire salary, that's significant. Here in Ontario, as I noted, the number would be even higher at $225,500.

The bigger discussion is not about the savings, which are obvious, as the numbers show, and can be quite significant, depending on where you are located and the price of gas and electricity. It's that even in locations that the numbers show should heavily favour a shift to EV's, we see limited uptake and that's not because of a hypothetical downtime scenario that requires us to pretend that downtime doesn't exist for ICE's.

The risk-averse nature of these operations is at odds with the considerable addition of complexity, and thus operational liability, that introducing EV's into a fleet environment that has hundreds of man years of experience operating and servicing ICE vehicles brings.

You mentioned one of the challenges: charging away from the service depot. But having a 50A plug installed isn't expensive and would be easily negated by the operating savings in relatively short order.

I think the biggest issue beyond simple risk aversion (which is reasonable with a new, relatively immature technology) is likely serviceability, and everything connected to that. In a depot-centric situation where you have full time techs who are familiar with dealing with basically every possible issue that can take an ICE vehicle out of service, now you are expecting them to troubleshoot and repair a rolling mobile cell phone that has tangible fire risk and an HV battery pack that can easily kill them, requiring them to now have some electrician knowledge. It's a paradigm shift and it's understandable why so many are not embracing it.

 

[SC Maintenance]

You sound emotionally invested in the outcome of this thread.

Much like those who are emotionally invested in EV's perhaps?

If you want to start a contracting company and do it out of an EV pickup - feel free. I see guys around here working out of minivan's with a dozen ladders strapped to the roof. I give them great credit for just getting it done.

 

[SC Maintenance]

How am I butt hurt? I'm not the one who deflected to the petty "I will let that speak for itself rather than people who have never made a living out of their truck." rather than continuing to engage on the points made.

You crafted an incredibly fragile strawman that claimed to negate any of the OPEX savings from the EV truck that was predicated on the impossible premise that nothing could take an ICE truck out of service in a similar manner. You initially engaged on the math, which was at least an honest effort, but then when that wasn't working, got huffy and defaulted to claiming I didn't read your posts.

And here you are engaging with at least one of my points again You are right, it probably doesn't make sense for many fleets, and I said as much, but it's not due to the potential impact of a failed charge cable.

The potential fuel savings could be considerable. Let's say you have 50 trucks and we'll use your numbers for fuel costs and electricity, that's $82,500. That's somebody's entire salary, that's significant. Here in Ontario, as I noted, the number would be even higher at $225,500.

The bigger discussion is not about the savings, which are obvious, as the numbers show, and can be quite significant, depending on where you are located and the price of gas and electricity. It's that even in locations that the numbers show should heavily favour a shift to EV's, we see limited uptake and that's not because of a hypothetical downtime scenario that requires us to pretend that downtime doesn't exist for ICE's.

The risk-averse nature of these operations is at odds with the considerable addition of complexity, and thus operational liability, that introducing EV's into a fleet environment that has hundreds of man years of experience operating and servicing ICE vehicles brings.

You mentioned one of the challenges: charging away from the service depot. But having a 50A plug installed isn't expensive and would be easily negated by the operating savings in relatively short order.

I think the biggest issue beyond simple risk aversion (which is reasonable with a new, relatively immature technology) is likely serviceability, and everything connected to that. In a depot-centric situation where you have full time techs who are familiar with dealing with basically every possible issue that can take an ICE vehicle out of service, now you are expecting them to troubleshoot and repair a rolling mobile cell phone that has tangible fire risk and an HV battery pack that can easily kill them, requiring them to now have some electrician knowledge. It's a paradigm shift and it's understandable why so many are not embracing it.

Your the one that nitpicked one tiny piece of my post a week ago so you could argue.

If you want to start a contracting company working out of EV's go for it. Feel free to prove me wrong. If your owner operator you can likely make the time to make an EV work for your. Same as the guys that drive $80K diesels on 40's pulling a lawn mower, or other guys doing it out of a minivan. Anything is possible.

However when your HVAC tech who just spent all day on a 120F roof rolls in at 8PM and says screw it, I am not plugging this turd in - what you gonna do? Fire him. He will be working for your competitor by end of day because there already short of techs also.

Like I said, the majority of people already doing these jobs already voted.

 

[OVERKILL]

Your the one that nitpicked one tiny piece of my post a week ago so you could argue.

My intention was productive conversation, not a pissing contest, as I found that particular argument incredibly flaccid, but agree with the overarching premise, something you seem to keep missing, despite me saying it several times now.

If you want to start a contracting company working out of EV's go for it. Feel free to prove me wrong. If your owner operator you can likely make the time to make an EV work for your. Same as the guys that drive $80K diesels on 40's pulling a lawn mower, or other guys doing it out of a minivan. Anything is possible.

However when your HVAC tech who just spent all day on a 120F roof rolls in at 8PM and says screw it, I am not plugging this turd in - what you gonna do? Fire him. He will be working for your competitor by end of day because there already short of techs also.

Like I said, the majority of people already doing these jobs already voted.

Now, who isn't reading whose posts?