Ford EV lightning slammed in tow test

Sabotsailfam

Member
Feb 24, 2021
47
San Diego, CA
And, respectfully, this is dismissive attitude that drives me crazy, especially when people bring up legitimate concerns about EVs. Instead of prompting discussion, people who have concerns about EVs are simply regarded as “not liking change.”

To be clear, I do like change, especially when it’s a positive change. But, at least as of today, an EV doesn’t fit my lifestyle well. And I resent that I’m going to be forced to buy one in the future based on mandates, if I want a new vehicle. Maybe in the future there will be a model out there that is compelling to me and a fit for my use case.
Respectfully, here's a bona fide dismissive for you. It's ludicrous for you to imply that I don't care for any kind of debate about concerns about EVs--or any other new tech for that matter. It's a natural part of the evolution of a product. No new tech has ever been primetime-ready as a V1 fresh-out of the box. It evolves over time. We're now at a point where EVs are beating IC engines on the racetracks. What do you think that foretells for range, safety, etc. in the future? Improves with every iteration, and ultimately the old technology becomes chuckle-worthy.

Rest assured, viewing through skeptical lens is healthy. Ask questions. Do research. Discuss on forums like this. But the funny thing is how hard some people (perhaps not you? I wouldn't know) work to defend the status quo and actively look for ways to defeat the inevitable. That's my point. I don't even care much about it. It's just an observation and it's human nature. It won't change. Sorry you were offended and were "driven crazy". I have no idea why.

I don't have an EV, and probably won't have one for years. But I know it's coming and I'll laugh with the kids about the good ol' days with the kids.
 

Sabotsailfam

Member
Feb 24, 2021
47
San Diego, CA
Do you include mtbe, ethanol, BPA, radioactive waste, and Greek yogurt runoff as part of those benefits?
You lost me, bud. Maybe some of the smarter folks on here can respond. If you are talking about the consequences of manufacturing and use of new technologies, yeah, that's an ouch. Especially in largely unregulated economies like China. It wouldn't hurt to vastly limit our exposure to China where it's practical asap, right?

If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that we simply stop manufacturing and producing waste altogether, I've got a population of over 300 million in the USA who aren't giving up their stuff. Ha.

But the good news is that, over time, the efficiency of new products is vastly improved, from cars to appliances and more. It's in the best interest of producers to constantly improve. It's what sells. If we don't melt the planet first, we may be surprised at what we can do with solar and efficiency. Time will tell.

Maybe I missed the point of your comment.
 

Sjm9911

Super Active Member
May 31, 2018
12,205
Nj

I'll agree with some of that, but a lot of stuff is just throw away now. Need a new lawn mower, its cheaper to get a new one. Televisions, phones fridges, really all appliances, don't last like there old couterparts. Yes this stuff uses less engery now, but they are thrown away in about 10 years time. So , I will give you the efficiency , but there is a cost associated with that. When a 3 year old fridge gets a fried board, and the repair guy says it will cost more to fix it then buy new one , It might be time to rethink our priorities.
 

Sabotsailfam

Member
Feb 24, 2021
47
San Diego, CA

I'll agree with some of that, but a lot of stuff is just throw away now. Need a new lawn mower, its cheaper to get a new one. Televisions, phones fridges, really all appliances, don't last like there old couterparts. Yes this stuff uses less engery now, but they are thrown away in about 10 years time. So , I will give you the efficiency , but there is a cost associated with that. When a 3 year old fridge gets a fried board, and the repair guy says it will cost more to fix it then buy new one , It might be time to rethink our priorities.

I couldn't agree more. Quality over new-fangled latest technology. And there should be direct consequences for any manufacturer whose products don't last a reasonable length of time via mandated warrantee periods etc. Yes, the cost goes up on the front end. Lower over time and considering all factors. It's irresponsible and maddening that a fridge would last 2 years (not uncommon) and is scrap. Relatively easy fix and worth it.
 

teh603

Member
Dec 28, 2020
73
Coastal Texas
Buses here are usually about half full for the morning commute, but by afternoon they're either almost totally empty or packed to standing room only. Kinda wish we could get trains or cable cars out to the suburbs and exurbs. I don't think I've ever been on an empty train.
 

kudzu

Active Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 20, 2014
573
Knee deep in kudzu
I'll be out there with you on my points fired Harley.
I could ride my horse but would more likely just ride an e-bike charged via solar. Also have an ICE bike as a backup.

When we anticipate temporary power outages, like tropical storms or ice storms, we just roll the electric motorcycle into the living room, not kidding, and use it as a backup battery to run our computers, modem & routers. Two people working for two full workdays plus some time streaming media for entertainment. Still has juice left in the “tank”. If needed we could have pulled an EV into the basement and run extensions up from it to keep going. But let’s face it. By that point we would probably have cleared roads & would just use gas guzzling, ICE, bigass van to tow the TH to a place with better accommodations.

I am a big proponent of EV’s but am dead set against attempts to ban ICE vehicles, at least while we have our current technology. EVs are very very practical for most suburbanites & many city folks. They are not practical for every situation. We have 2 electric cars, electric motorcycle, e-assist recumbent, e-bike, & I’m seriously considering an electric moped. But I also ride am ICE dirt bike. We often take EV when camping. Clearly that’s for convenience, not environmental reasons. And we do sometimes end up plugging the car in at the campsite. My e-trike charges at the campsite, also, & a few times the e-motorcycle. So now the infrastructure in campgrounds is sometimes going to electric vehicles. That will increase a lot. I foresee a future need to charge extra for charging your vehicle at the campsite.
 

Patrick w

Active Member
Aug 13, 2021
586
You lost me, bud. Maybe some of the smarter folks on here can respond. If you are talking about the consequences of manufacturing and use of new technologies, yeah, that's an ouch. Especially in largely unregulated economies like China. It wouldn't hurt to vastly limit our exposure to China where it's practical asap, right?

If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that we simply stop manufacturing and producing waste altogether, I've got a population of over 300 million in the USA who aren't giving up their stuff. Ha.

But the good news is that, over time, the efficiency of new products is vastly improved, from cars to appliances and more. It's in the best interest of producers to constantly improve. It's what sells. If we don't melt the planet first, we may be surprised at what we can do with solar and efficiency. Time will tell.

Maybe I missed the point of your comment.
No those are things that were supposedly good for us. Mtbe was a fuel additives before ethanol which was supposed to have these wonder benefits of better mpg and emissions. Neither were true. Bpa was a by product of polycarbonate plastic water bottles. Again, replacing things like glass. Ethanol reduces fuel economy. Rots out carburators. Increases cost of food as most of it is made from corn.
And some pain meds were supposed to be non addictive.
 

Sabotsailfam

Member
Feb 24, 2021
47
San Diego, CA
No those are things that were supposedly good for us. Mtbe was a fuel additives before ethanol which was supposed to have these wonder benefits of better mpg and emissions. Neither were true. Bpa was a by product of polycarbonate plastic water bottles. Again, replacing things like glass. Ethanol reduces fuel economy. Rots out carburators. Increases cost of food as most of it is made from corn.
And some pain meds were supposed to be non addictive.
I don't want to sound like I disagree with you on any of those examples. I don't. But, on the whole, I wonder what share of new, widely adopted technology has resulted in a net failure long-term? Innovation and change rarely comes without a cost. In fact, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and for every innovation there is some kind of cost. I'm not sure what to do with that statement, but I do know that I'm comfortable with many negative impacts of my washer/dryer, dishwasher, phone, and yes, IC cars. Hopefully innovation and tech will continue to enable us to reduce those impacts.

The sticker on my new washer dryer says that it uses $23 a year in energy. How is that even possible? It uses less energy all year for a family of four than I use in my popup in propane and electric in a 3 day camping trip. I bet the original washer dryers were some serious coal-burners and bright minds and some democratically elected officials said that cost was unnecessary and innovators were activated by, I'll brace myself and say it......regulation. Result: $23 a year to run my very basic model washer dryer.

It sucks that my car exhaust is belching out benzene, sulphur, carbon dioxide, formaldehyde, etc (chemicals), as they all do. But I just filled up a tank of chemical soup in the old Lincoln Aviator yesterday without a second thought. As for the chemicals that you've listed, I've got zero debate that we should do what we can to limit/eliminate/replace errors asap as technology moves forward. I think most people (there are exceptions) aren't willing to give up all their tech and go back to the tech of 1901. Broadly, tech is a net positive.

Don't get me started on cell phones or even the Internet - I'll take 1901. Yes, you read that right.

To spin this back to pop ups, which is technological innovation that I love, I'm very excited about all the promise of solar and improvements in battery tech (eg: Jackery, which I would love to own one day). I wonder if I will live long enough to get to the point where I can replace my 3-way fridge with a reliable electric-only fridge/freezer for full off-grid for 4+ days? And is it wacky talk to wonder if my propane heater, which kept us warm and happy all night in Mammoth Lakes for 28 degree nights a couple of months ago, could be replaced in my lifetime? Not likely, but who knows?
 

Bowman3d

Super Active Member
Apr 13, 2015
1,017
LaLa land (SoCal)
I remember when VCRs first came out. I couldn’t afford one. Eventually the price came down and I bought my first one for $250. Fast forward a few yrs and you could find them for $25. Did the govt bring the price down by mandates.. I think not. Same thing with video cameras. Very bulky and expensive. Now I can take great video with my phone. No govt intervention there. Plasma tvs , very heavy very expensive at first. Mine didn’t cost me $300. No govt help needed. What I’m getting at is electric vehicles will get there without gov’t forcing it. Eventually the market will make it feasible for even me to buy one. But for now let the guys who have to have the newest technology first no matter how much they have to overpay for it, buy them till finally the technology is there where everyone will want them.
Until then 67F36FD7-0A09-4F76-BDD5-96C41C883748.jpeg
 

Sabotsailfam

Member
Feb 24, 2021
47
San Diego, CA
I remember when VCRs first came out. I couldn’t afford one. Eventually the price came down and I bought my first one for $250. Fast forward a few yrs and you could find them for $25. Did the govt bring the price down by mandates.. I think not. Same thing with video cameras. Very bulky and expensive. Now I can take great video with my phone. No govt intervention there. Plasma tvs , very heavy very expensive at first. Mine didn’t cost me $300. No govt help needed. What I’m getting at is electric vehicles will get there without gov’t forcing it. Eventually the market will make it feasible for even me to buy one. But for now let the guys who have to have the newest technology first no matter how much they have to overpay for it, buy them till finally the technology is there where everyone will want them.
Until then View attachment 86793
 

Sabotsailfam

Member
Feb 24, 2021
47
San Diego, CA
I remember when VCRs first came out. I couldn’t afford one. Eventually the price came down and I bought my first one for $250. Fast forward a few yrs and you could find them for $25. Did the govt bring the price down by mandates.. I think not. Same thing with video cameras. Very bulky and expensive. Now I can take great video with my phone. No govt intervention there. Plasma tvs , very heavy very expensive at first. Mine didn’t cost me $300. No govt help needed. What I’m getting at is electric vehicles will get there without gov’t forcing it. Eventually the market will make it feasible for even me to buy one. But for now let the guys who have to have the newest technology first no matter how much they have to overpay for it, buy them till finally the technology is there where everyone will want them.
Until then View attachment 86793


I wish it were so simple. I really do. I think you’re missing something related to government mandates, regs, etc. Example: Government mandating pricing in the private sector = bad. Government controls of price fixing=good. Most people are likely to agree with that. Right? What I can assure you is that you would not enjoy a regulation-free environment.

Competitive forces are definitely what brings down the cost of consumer products. So you’re right there. And, although it’s a benefit in many ways for the consumer, low prices for discretionary purchases like VCRs are not a concern for the community at large. Nobody *else* really cares if I get my VCR for $25 or $100. It's discretionary, whereas a car, or even a public bus for that matter are generally more of a requirement or those folks who would like to, or need to, leave home. And it's not in the government's purview to dictate pricing.

Manufacturing processes and energy use? Sure, those would be a community concern due to pollution, runoff, etc. Therefore, credit swaps for carbon, energy, blah, blah. But, generally speaking, tough luck for Joe Consumer. You may have had to wait until the producers duked it out to drive down VCR prices to $25. It took take years. (Or, as is the case in many ways, they steal the technology which is often the case for foreign companies with fewer scruples and….surprise! regulation and laws)

But, for primary community concerns like energy use or grid failure or gas and emissions, etc, regulation is what moves the needle. And even preserves life.

Let’s try a thought experiment. Where would we be today with emissions and smog in if there were no emissions standards? Welcome to 1970s LA where many young folks had never seen the mountains. Google “LA with snowy mountains” for a look at LA today. Pretty impressive, right?

What would companies do without emissions requirements? Nothing of substance because it doesn’t mean increased profits. The consumer doesn’t want to pay for the R&D and investment to reduce the smoke pouring out of tailpipes. That’s the problem. Voters were fed up and said they wanted to be able to breathe, hence we needed some controls. Now they can see the mountains in LA. Not bad.

Or how about Testl. Would it even still be a solvent company? They were "days away" from bankruptcy. Tesla has single-handedly made EVs a viable alternative despite massive challenges and skepticism. And we are in the infancy of the move to electric. Tesla is essentially a toddler of a company (run by an actual toddler IMHO). So the question is, did Tesla benefit from government programs? Of course! To the tune of literally billions of dollars. Some of those dollars have helped them create cars that can not only get you around town, but can in most cases leave IC cars in the dust. They can even power your house in an electrical outage. Pretty nutty stuff and it’s *almost literally* just starting. We will ALL benefit from this early progress.

You are right. "Free markets" work wonders. And there is NO alternative. And people must benefit for their ideas and hard work. But it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Human nature, which is reflected in business and industry, diminishes the value of unchecked pure free markets. Despite what many people seem to think, there are rules in free markets or it would be absolute chaos. It's unfortunate because any mention of regulation is death. It's now a pejorative because people get caught up in the vernacular of parties. It's mostly BS positioning. (People hate “socialism” but they aren’t going to send their social security checks back, right?)

So the real question is, “what do we value?” Maybe it’s clear skies. Maybe it’s thinking we are “free” because there’s less regulation. Maybe not. Depends on who you are. With regard to what will be an ever-improving technology that will reduce dependence on fossil fuels through efficiency and yes, solar and wind too, I’m on board for the investment 100%. To say EVs can only use green energy suggests that the technology is in a frozen state with no future hope of doing exactly as you've suggested. It takes time and investment (just like it took Tesla time and investment to do what Ford, GM, Toyota and the entire auto industry are still getting ramped up on) I don’t know about timelines for deployment of programs or sunsetting of the last IC car. That’s likely to be fluid and I’ll stay tuned. But I don’t want to live like the folks in Shanghai, China who have to worry about their kids going outside. I think most Americans will agree with that, and it’s increasing over time with a shift in demographics.

I’m not some purist EV person. I don’t even own one yet. I also believe that regulation and government need to be limited to critical matters. But you certainly won’t ever hear me saying “ok, let’s kill regulation entirely and leave our safety and future up to big business and special interests because our free markets will serve us best that way" because….well, because that would be uniformly insane. Zero regulation generally benefits the big guys. If you ask me whether it’s more important to reduce friction for business or reduce the exploitation of the weak, I’ll take the weak.

Not trying to sound preachy. Some of this is just opinion. I don’t often even bother to comment on this stuff, but I think a lot of people are losing the big picture in favor of some kind of party line—or getting hung up in rote answers without thinking through the details. This is not at all an attack on you specifically and you might not reflect what I'm talking about. Hopefully it's viewed as productive sharing of information. Rant ended. I just hope we can continue to make real progress for my kids’ future in a world where exploitation is the name of the game for far too many.
 

JankyPLC

New Member
Jan 27, 2022
8
I remember when VCRs first came out. I couldn’t afford one. Eventually the price came down and I bought my first one for $250. Fast forward a few yrs and you could find them for $25. Did the govt bring the price down by mandates.. I think not. Same thing with video cameras. Very bulky and expensive. Now I can take great video with my phone. No govt intervention there. Plasma tvs , very heavy very expensive at first. Mine didn’t cost me $300. No govt help needed. What I’m getting at is electric vehicles will get there without gov’t forcing it. Eventually the market will make it feasible for even me to buy one. But for now let the guys who have to have the newest technology first no matter how much they have to overpay for it, buy them till finally the technology is there where everyone will want them.
Until then View attachment 86793
I just came here to say that this meme isn’t a meme, it’s already the reality in the US. We produce far more wind and solar energy than EVs consume charging as a nation, with massive overhead for more EVs to fall under that generation for years to come, even if no further wind or solar was installed.
 

1380ken

Super Active Member
Nov 7, 2013
2,964
Mass
"What would companies do without emissions requirements? Nothing of substance because it doesn’t mean increased profits. The consumer doesn’t want to pay for the R&D and investment to reduce the smoke pouring out of tailpipes. That’s the problem. Voters were fed up and said they wanted to be able to breathe, hence we needed some controls. Now they can see the mountains in LA. Not bad."


Not totally true, cars would of evolved even without emissions standards. The energy crisis moved the industry to more fuel efficient vehicles. Also technology made a huge difference.
High energy ignitions and computer controlled fuel injection are probably the biggest contributors to cleaner air. They would of come without regulations. A good running engine is a cleaner running engine in most cases.
The regulations definitely helped get the last 10% of improvement and certainly sped thing up.
 

Rusty2192

Super Active Member
Jul 30, 2014
1,193
Kentucky
You’re assuming everyone who buys an EV is a green nut and doing it solely to ”save the planet”. That’s far from the truth. Most just buy them because they’re better cars. Sure, there are some extremists, but those are on both sides. Personally, I’d be happy to support my fellow Kentuckians working hard to support their families in the coal mines. 100% American power from right down the road.

Who knows, maybe one of these days I’ll be able to keep it all in-state with an electric Super Duty built in Louisville, made with batteries built in Glendale out of recycled minerals from Hopkinsville, all powered by coal from Eastern KY with some local hydroelectric thrown in. Or maybe one of those fancy new EV Corvette SUVs they‘ll be building in Bowling Green ;)

I‘ll see your meme and raise my own. All in good fun [Guitar]
1660224236630.jpeg
 

Sabotsailfam

Member
Feb 24, 2021
47
San Diego, CA
"What would companies do without emissions requirements? Nothing of substance because it doesn’t mean increased profits. The consumer doesn’t want to pay for the R&D and investment to reduce the smoke pouring out of tailpipes. That’s the problem. Voters were fed up and said they wanted to be able to breathe, hence we needed some controls. Now they can see the mountains in LA. Not bad."


Not totally true, cars would of evolved even without emissions standards. The energy crisis moved the industry to more fuel efficient vehicles. Also technology made a huge difference.
High energy ignitions and computer controlled fuel injection are probably the biggest contributors to cleaner air. They would of come without regulations. A good running engine is a cleaner running engine in most cases.
The regulations definitely helped get the last 10% of improvement and certainly sped thing up.

"What would companies do without emissions requirements? Nothing of substance because it doesn’t mean increased profits. The consumer doesn’t want to pay for the R&D and investment to reduce the smoke pouring out of tailpipes. That’s the problem. Voters were fed up and said they wanted to be able to breathe, hence we needed some controls. Now they can see the mountains in LA. Not bad."


Not totally true, cars would of evolved even without emissions standards. The energy crisis moved the industry to more fuel efficient vehicles. Also technology made a huge difference.
High energy ignitions and computer controlled fuel injection are probably the biggest contributors to cleaner air. They would of come without regulations. A good running engine is a cleaner running engine in most cases.
The regulations definitely helped get the last 10% of improvement and certainly sped thing up.
Sure, progress is made based on consumer demand, eg teh demand for fuel efficiency when gas prices go up. Companies can and would respond to that. A no-brainer. I don't think even the greenest-leaning fanatic would suggest that companies are incapable of innovation independent of regulation. Cars with higher mpg would be available for the people who chose them. Everyone else would still be belching out the same chemical cloud. Why not make material progress and level the playing field with clear rules of engagement? (and there is a TON of money to be made for innovators in this space versus entrenched companies) Special economic interests are mitigated, and the changes are *ongoing* instead of having the same problem all over again after oil prices dropped. They did; and relatively quickly. Energy prices and demand would be fluid and you would have decades with low mpg vehicles being churned out in favor of high horsepower, larger vehicles. It's a natural response. And it actually happened. People went right back to larger vehicles with low mpg. Why wouldn't they? Oh, because they don't want smog? That's for the *other* guy to worry about. I need my Escalade. LOL.

And you're right. Regulations sped things up -- by possibly decades. Things like catalytic converters and other innovative equipment might not even exist yet.

A wonderful argument for a national standard is national security. Do we want to have the best reasonable standards to keep us independent of foreign oil? Well, yeah. Of course we do. All this stuff is going to accelerate and we ALL benefit.

This is now purely a discussion about regulation. So, I'll go on the record as saying that we should regulate as little as possible for the desired democratically decided outcome. There have been some bad overreaches and missteps but, on the whole, America is a world leader and winning the game. Just take a vacation in, I don't know....Lahore. Haha.

In fact, for an objective exercise, go research the most polluted countries. We, of course, are not on the list. Now take your pick of any of the countries with little or no regulation and let me know where you would rather live. All in good fun and communication. No hard feelings I hope.
 
Last edited:




Top