At what point is the R1T outdated?

[the long way downunder]

It’s funny… this thread asking about when the R1T gets outdated and at the same time everyone’s fawning over the Lightning… which hasn’t changed in design much for years, if not decades! My good friend replaces his Ford truck for work (Contractor) every couple years for 20 years now and I am amazed at how little design aesthetic has changed each time. They just keep gettin bigger, which to be fair is what I believe most F series truck owners want.

I personally find the Lightning to be an outdated design that Ford slapped EV into and glued a tablet to the dash. Im not a Ford hater, in fact I have an E450 Super Duty, its a 2008 model and looks pretty much the same as a new one. It’s just me, but I wouldn’t get into a Lightning till they redesign the platform. It feels like theyre rushing to get their trucks out at scale to capture the market before they fully invest in rethinking the platform… inside and out.

Here’s where the flames consume me!

I'm pretty sure I've never "fawned" over a vehicle … maybe a '73 911 RS (before they became pretentious status baubles for affluent types.)
I would prefer the F-150 didn't grow, but blame the consumers, not the designers … consumers see "more" as the only measure of better. Funnily enough, I want a pickup sized between a Ranger and an F-150 … hey presto, it's the R1T! : )
I have the '21 F-150 Hybrid. It's damn near perfect and has some things I wish the Rivian folks had chosen to prioritize (onboard power) and the Lightning has the grill-hood load-flat frunk access, which I hope Rivian just quietly changes about the R1 maybe in the version 1.1 in say 2024? (it's obviously complicated for crash testing, supply contracts and tooling to make an "A" layer body change mid-cycle.)
The changes in the F-150 tend to be for marketing, year to year, but every few years, there's radical changes (going to an aluminum body, v6 turbo) change the whole pick-up market (onboard power, hybrid drivetrain) not to forget the Lightning will be the first full-size pickup and presumably become the preferred vehicle for all their fleet buyers (law, war, trade, freight, commercial, industrial.)
The reason Tesla can't "move the needle" on pollution is the small number of vehicles and the niche markets they can reach, often replacing already fuel-efficient or hybrid vehicles. Ford can build millions of these boring, bland, outdated pickups replacing vehicles that get 15-20 mpg or sit idling just to run some lights and keep the donuts warm.
Ford agrees the Lightning 1.0 is obsolescent, if not outdated, and they've already announced the production run of the 1.0 is limited in part because the second gen product is coming (after 2024.)

Sponsored

 

[Craigins]

Seriously?
a) Rivian forum (I'm not good at staying on topic … you're not helping!)
b) radioactive cooling water (and the latest salt reactors still just rely on "big concrete box")
c) don't tell me nuclear is safer than solar because people fall of ladders installing solar panels : )

No, it was a serious question. I wanted to see your level of understanding, if you thought nuclear fuel was green goo like everyone likes to portrait.

Not arguing it is safer.

 

[Bullitt]

I'm pretty sure I've never "fawned" over a vehicle … maybe a '73 911 RS (before they became pretentious status baubles for affluent types.)
I would prefer the F-150 didn't grow, but blame the consumers, not the designers … consumers see "more" as the only measure of better. Funnily enough, I want a pickup sized between a Ranger and an F-150 … hey presto, it's the R1T! : )
I have the '21 F-150 Hybrid. It's damn near perfect and has some things I wish the Rivian folks had chosen to prioritize (onboard power) and the Lightning has the grill-hood load-flat frunk access, which I hope Rivian just quietly changes about the R1 maybe in the version 1.1 in say 2024? (it's obviously complicated for crash testing, supply contracts and tooling to make an "A" layer body change mid-cycle.)
The changes in the F-150 tend to be for marketing, year to year, but every few years, there's radical changes (going to an aluminum body, v6 turbo) change the whole pick-up market (onboard power, hybrid drivetrain) not to forget the Lightning will be the first full-size pickup and presumably become the preferred vehicle for all their fleet buyers (law, war, trade, freight, commercial, industrial.)
The reason Tesla can't "move the needle" on pollution is the small number of vehicles and the niche markets they can reach, often replacing already fuel-efficient or hybrid vehicles. Ford can build millions of these boring, bland, outdated pickups replacing vehicles that get 15-20 mpg or sit idling just to run some lights and keep the donuts warm.
Ford agrees the Lightning 1.0 is obsolescent, if not outdated, and they've already announced the production run of the 1.0 is limited in part because the second gen product is coming (after 2024.)

I too fawned over the 73 911 RS!

I should not have said everyone… But Ford already calling it obsolescent and planning to etch a sketch in a couple years is indicative of a company trying to rush to market to maintain dominance, not to be innovative as an EV… yet

 

[the long way downunder]

I too fawned over the 73 911 RS!

I should not have said everyone… But Ford already calling it obsolescent and planning to etch a sketch in a couple years is indicative of a company trying to rush to market to maintain dominance, not to be innovative as an EV… yet

I don't think Rivian has the capacity to respond to GM, but I'd like to think Ford will see what GM has done (rear-steering, fast-acting suspension, mid-gate, cameras everywhere) and add those capabilities. All three (and whatever RAM is doing) need to be implementing 2023 technology (that pretty much means LFP in cells or packs) because the competition for the consumer will be fought on terms of range and charging. Tesla continues to say "look at this EV go 0.4 seconds quicker 0-60" but the owner complaints are real world range, overcrowded Superchargers and battery charging curves.
Hopefully Rivian is working on a 200kWh+ LFP battery with no degradation … as well as working with politicians to get big slices of the $5B applied sensibly to the charging infrastructure and avoiding pandering to politicians resulting in the usual bizarre nonsense of putting two 7.2kW trickle chargers outside every library in their voting district …
I read somewhere the $5B "plan" is a charging station every 50 miles on Interstates … as simple as that sounds, it would solve the problem – and it would require more than $5B and more than just plunking charging pedestals on the forecourt of gas stations and freeway rest stops.
I've driven 1000 and 2000 mile road trips from Silicon Valley to Chicago in a Model 3 and Model X. A DC FC (delivering 150 to 350kW continuous) every 50 miles would make it possible to take road trips or even tow cross country. Today, it's just not realistic for most people to make their road trips all about finding the next charger, taking an hour, and adding about 25-30% total trip time.
By mid 2022, I expect to be towing a small enclosed trailer cross country behind my R1T. There will be a 10kW generator in the trailer with toys like two electric dirt bikes. The genset is the dirty truth of towing with an EV till the charging network gets built.

 

[Bullitt]

I don't think Rivian has the capacity to respond to GM, but I'd like to think Ford will see what GM has done (rear-steering, fast-acting suspension, mid-gate, cameras everywhere) and add those capabilities. All three (and whatever RAM is doing) need to be implementing 2023 technology (that pretty much means LFP in cells or packs) because the competition for the consumer will be fought on terms of range and charging. Tesla continues to say "look at this EV go 0.4 seconds quicker 0-60" but the owner complaints are real world range, overcrowded Superchargers and battery charging curves.
Hopefully Rivian is working on a 200kWh+ LFP battery with no degradation … as well as working with politicians to get big slices of the $5B applied sensibly to the charging infrastructure and avoiding pandering to politicians resulting in the usual bizarre nonsense of putting two 7.2kW trickle chargers outside every library in their voting district …
I read somewhere the $5B "plan" is a charging station every 50 miles on Interstates … as simple as that sounds, it would solve the problem – and it would require more than $5B and more than just plunking charging pedestals on the forecourt of gas stations and freeway rest stops.
I've driven 1000 and 2000 mile road trips from Silicon Valley to Chicago in a Model 3 and Model X. A DC FC (delivering 150 to 350kW continuous) every 50 miles would make it possible to take road trips or even tow cross country. Today, it's just not realistic for most people to make their road trips all about finding the next charger, taking an hour, and adding about 25-30% total trip time.
By mid 2022, I expect to be towing a small enclosed trailer cross country behind my R1T. There will be a 10kW generator in the trailer with toys like two electric dirt bikes. The genset is the dirty truth of towing with an EV till the charging network gets built.

Agreed. I do think GM has looked to innovate further and definitely hope Ford doesn’t rest on just being the market leader all this time.

Having a Model 3 with LFP I cant agree more on that side of things. While LFP is not the end game it does give me 100% charge every time for a minimal trade off in weight/range. Im hoping to one day be towing an offroad trailer with my R1T, so I am hoping to see the trailer side of the industry work towards some new solutions like the Airstream concept.

 

[Zoidz]

You're illustrating why nuclear is not realistic, it's a corporate push to keep a stranglehold on for-profit energy.
The last half century of R&D pushing the nuclear agenda (still based on technology discoveries from last century … no new news here … no "this" close …) has not resulted in the invention of a nuclear solution that deals with raw materials, waste, transportation or catastrophe.
As the old joke goes, when a solar power plant fails, what spills into the water table … sunlight?

What energy generation/supply is not for profit?

The world consumes more and more electrical power every year. Solar, wind, hydro cannot met the 24 hour demand that is coming. Until a viable solution for generating and *mass* storage of ~1 billion kwh anually of solar & wind energy is found, we have few options:
- Consume Less (not gonna happen with EV growth)
- Continue to use fossil fuels
- Nuclear 2.0 - SMR

Feel free to offer a solution to the 1 billion kwh problem.

 

[E.S.]

Feel free to offer a solution to the 1 billion kwh problem.

HARNESS Lightining!! 1.21 gigawatz FER EVERBODY!!!!!!!! *muahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!*


<ahem> ... sorry, that slipped out


?

 

[Zoidz]

HARNESS Lightining!! 1.21 gigawatz FER EVERBODY!!!!!!!! *muahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!*


<ahem> ... sorry, that slipped out


?

Mr. Fusion is just around the corner!!!

The latest breakthrough in fusion power - it took 25 years to double fusion power output, they can now boil 60 kettles of water. WoooHoooo - Tea Time!!!

"The UK-based JET laboratory has smashed its own world record for the amount of energy it can extract by squeezing together two forms of hydrogen.

The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).
This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
It's not a massive energy output - only enough to boil about 60 kettles' worth of water."

 

[Max]

Personally I feel like the 150 kW minimum requirement I'm hearing about is too low. With EVs already on the market that can pull over 300 kW, and EVs coming out with such massive batteries that 150kW won't get an 80% charge in a full hour, it's definitely too low.

Rivian Stories (min 27:20) just posted this (196 KW). I am not sure it will be in the next software update, what is the deal and who the Brice dude is.

 

[emoore]

What energy generation/supply is not for profit?

The world consumes more and more electrical power every year. Solar, wind, hydro cannot met the 24 hour demand that is coming. Until a viable solution for generating and *mass* storage of ~1 billion kwh anually of solar & wind energy is found, we have few options:
- Consume Less (not gonna happen with EV growth)
- Continue to use fossil fuels
- Nuclear 2.0 - SMR

Feel free to offer a solution to the 1 billion kwh problem.

There is nothing technical stopping solar, wind and storage to meeting the 24 hour demand that is already here and in the future. So yes it could be done if enough resources are put toward it. Continuing to use fossil fuels isn't a solution and neither is fission. Once fusion gets here then the game has changed but until then we need to build solar and wind as fast as possible.

 

[Zoidz]

There is nothing technical stopping solar, wind and storage to meeting the 24 hour demand that is already here and in the future. So yes it could be done if enough resources are put toward it. Continuing to use fossil fuels isn't a solution and neither is fission. Once fusion gets here then the game has changed but until then we need to build solar and wind as fast as possible.

There's also nothing technical stopping production of 5 million EVs a year, but we know that's not going to happen.

"If enough resources are put to it" is easy to type, isn't it? Not so easy in the real world.

 

[Inkedsphynx]

There's also nothing technical stopping production of 5 million EVs a year, but we know that's not going to happen.

"If enough resources are put to it" is easy to type, isn't it? Not so easy in the real world.

And with defeatist attitudes like that we'd still be in the stone age staring at our square wheels.

Humanity possesses infinite capability. We just have to harness our will. You're right, it's not easy, but few things in life worth doing are.

Instead of casting negativity at those who are dreaming of making it better, maybe direct that energy into positive change?

 

[Toadkillerdog]

And with defeatist attitudes like that we'd still be in the stone age staring at our square wheels.

Humanity possesses infinite capability. We just have to harness our will. You're right, it's not easy, but few things in life worth doing are.

Instead of casting negativity at those who are dreaming of making it better, maybe direct that energy into positive change?

Honestly, I don‘t think he was being negative and defeatist so much as practical and realistic…

 

[the long way downunder]

There's also nothing technical stopping production of 5 million EVs a year, but we know that's not going to happen.

"If enough resources are put to it" is easy to type, isn't it? Not so easy in the real world.

And with defeatist attitudes like that we'd still be in the stone age staring at our square wheels.

Humanity possesses infinite capability. We just have to harness our will. You're right, it's not easy, but few things in life worth doing are.

Instead of casting negativity at those who are dreaming of making it better, maybe direct that energy into positive change?

I don't think it's defeatist or even negative to observe that the auto industry has an unbroken history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. : )
I also don't think think that electric vehicles are the manifestation of humanity and survival ... it's just a matter of overcoming politicians and their short-sighted vested interest in taking money from lobbyists to maintain the oligarchy and keep up the status quo.

It's the old joke of "what's 100 politicians with their backs against the wall come the revolution?" or "what's 100 lawyers at the bottom on the ocean?" … we need a good start at transitioning the world to sustainable industry (vehicles, energy, food, health care, education, employment … you name it) … each country enforcing a mandate to electric vehicles by 2030 is enough … as we've already seen in the last 24 months, the survival instinct kicks in and the fiercest stalwarts of the oil industry drop their flags and turn their coats and announce their billion dollar electric vehicle investments.

 

[Trandall]

"The UK-based JET laboratory has smashed its own world record for the amount of energy it can extract by squeezing together two forms of hydrogen.

The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).
This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.
It's not a massive energy output - only enough to boil about 60 kettles' worth of water."

Something seems amiss with the energy quantities above. A Joule is a pretty tiny unit of energy 59 megajoules to boil 60 kettles seems possibly correct but 11 megawatts to boil 60 kettles seems way to large, no? Either way technical feasibility is only the first hurdle, economic feasibility may prove just as tricky. While we are waiting for economic net positive fusion here on Earth we can continue to harness the clean already economic byproduct of fusion occurring in our local star.
Thinking of solar and wind rather than fossil fuels which could technically be considered a byproduct of our suns fusion as well. It could turn out that humans can generate enough clean sustainable power without fusion so I wouldn't recommend we put to much emphasis on any one technology. I'm also not convinced that electrochemical battery cells will ultimately prove to be sustainable. As you (or someone?) just mentioned the quantities required are very large.

Sponsored