Featured Ford F-150 Lightning BEV - US$39,974*

The shuttle trailer had its own powered assist.

 

Are you sure?

How A 5,600-Pound Toyota Towed A 292,000-Pound Space Shuttle

"After seeing it happen, I'm pleased to say it was all on the up-and-up. Essentially, they hooked the truck up to a large, unpowered rig, and, well, towed it."

"There was also actually a reason to use a the Tundra for this small segment of the Orbiter's trip. This quarter-mile was the part that crosses the overpass over the 405 freeway, so the normal self-propelled rig was just too heavy. So, a lighter rig pulled by a light truck makes sense."

 

Dave Barry is a riot......


I haven't looked into the voodoo economics that will allegedly allow the lightning to sell for $33,000, but based on a poorly-equipped ICE F-150 going for ~$50,000 - I can't see $33K being based in reality.

Knowing Ford's on-again, off-again history with "quality" (owned 5 of them) I definitely do not envy the owners of the first year's production of Lightnings.

I guess I should give Ford a tip of the hat though. Looking into a Hybrid Fusion was my impetus to purchase the Prius.

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

I used to work with a woman who drove a full size van. She said she liked the big vehicles because "they would keep her safe when she blacked out"...

Thanks, but now I feel sorry for the people unfortunate enough to be driving (or pedestrians) NEAR you when you pass out.

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

Have him take off his cowboy hat?

(Sorry, couldn't help myself)

Considering that 80% of pickup trucks never haul anything more challenging that a 50# bag of dog food - I don't think we need to worry about a load of horse manure.

Besides - I don't think you'll find that a lot of buyers of the $65,000 ICE F-150s plan on hauling much manure anyway. For that, you get a 1990's model with 200,000 miles on it from Smilin' Bill's used car lot.

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

Articles I saw from the time didn't mention the powered parts being disconnected.

Same way people can get a Prius Prime for less than a Prius. It's $39k with the federal tax incentive. Even less depending on the state incentives. Assuming dealers don't add a market adjustment.

 

we've seen strongest men pulling a double tractor-trailer rig, cars pulling locomotive Arrangements. Moving things that are massive at speeds below walking is not the trick. It's getting them up to speed - and still being able to tackle a grade.
In the case of a 4 horse trailer - or 40' tri-axle 5th wheel, it also includes the amount of energy to get down the road 200 or 300 miles.
.

 

Newtonian Physics says once in motion an object tends to stay in motion, an object at rest tends to stay at rest.

The hardest part of any "pull" is from 0.0000 MPH to whatever speed. That first 0.0001MPH....

moto g(7) power ?

 

That's sort-of true, but not for that reason.

For many things, the reason that getting started is the hardest part is that static friction (friction when staying still) is higher than dynamic friction (friction when already sliding). In cars, we have tires which are always (unless drifting, sliding, etc.) in static friction with the road. However, rubber "creeps", meaning it flat-spots after sitting in the same position on the road.

However, from a power point-of-view, getting started takes almost no power - just thrust, and thrust is just the combination of wheel torque and tire radius. This is why even a low-powered car like a Prius Prime can get off the line so well - lots of torque and not much power needed. The same is true of this towing demonstration - just need a lot of torque, and that's easy to get with gearing. Next is just traction. If you have traction and low gearing, and you do if you have 4-wheel-drive and 4-wheel-low gearing, then towing on flat ground isn't difficult.

As an example, I once pulled something that weighed 56 tons up a shallow hill. It was on wheels and I was using a come-along, which is a sort-of extremely low gear ratio device. This is how my one arm pulled that heavy load. It just did it very, very slowly.

 

I feel offended We HAVE hauled manure in our 2000 Tundra with only about 60K miles on it..

 

Apparently some people are shocked that pickups are used for work in the real world and are not used only as stage props in movies or life as in Urban Cowboy.

 

Back in the day, FedEx would allow one of their planes at Dulles on a slow weekend to be used in a competition where an ~8 person team (weight limits) would pull it 100 yards. Yes my wife and I were on one of those teams. 2 engine freighter. Pull maybe 100 yards. Best time wins.

 

Interesting reading for you:

The short-term energy storage of Energy Observer | Energy Observer

"The double storage of batteries and hydrogen aboard the Energy Observer demonstrates the complementarity of storage and the distribution of use.

The batteries provide short term immediate power, whilst the hydrogen provides long-term autonomy. But above all, the Energy Observer demonstrates the immense advantage that hydrogen has over batteries. The battery set weighs 1,400 kg for 112 kWh, whereas the hydrogen storage and fuel cell together weigh a total of 1,700 kg for 1,000 kWh. This means 1 kWh weighs 12.5 kg when stored in batteries, and only 1.7 kg when stored as hydrogen.

In other words, for equal weight, hydrogen storage contains 7.35 times more power than the batteries, which is a considerable advantage for mobility, whether it be on the sea, land or in the air."

 

that's the kind of reasoning that demands sea, land, air transportation to run on plutonium. There might be a few hidden costs.
.

 

This is the perfect solution for people who need 1000 kwh between refueling opportunities.
What is this use case?
Most vehicles for personal use don't need this.

Mike

 

The idea is that cars need 450 miles of range (virtually every conventional car since the 70s has had 450 miles of range), and need it while weighing and costing less than the weight and cost of a battery that can supply that range. Until batteries are better, probably by a factor of about 3-4, hydrogen will stomp them for energy density. Further, the vast majority of people take the vast majority of trips under 50 miles so toting around a 400 mile battery when you only need it 1% of the time is silly and inefficient. Toting around a 50 mile battery and 400 miles with hydrogen that weighs 4-7 times less than a 400 mile battery makes a lot more sense, and this boat proves that with actual numbers. An 1,100 kWh marine Lithium-Iron-Phosphate battery would weight 14 tons (mentioned in a video) versus the 1.7 tons for the 1,000kWh hydrogen system - including making its own clean water from sea water. They added a "small" (for a ~1,200kWh total system) battery to cover the peaks - just like in a PHEV.

 

Weight is just one consideration for the vehicle design. What is the space requirements, the volume, for each system?

From the Mirai, we see that hydrogen has a packaging problem in a car, while not having much of a weight advantage for the entire vehicle.

It's a very small concept ship covered in PV panels. There is a lot more space to put equipment in it. Hydrogen in that use might have a case. Note that the Energy Observer addresses the infrastructure question by making its own hydrogen.

Even with sails, a transport ship will use more energy than it, and likely won't have the solar to make enough hydrogen. Because of space use on the ship, and infrastructure costs, ammonia and methanol are more likely fuels for future shipping.

 

Probably the most important one, since weight cascades through the structure of the vehicle. More battery weight means more weight to support it, which is also more weight, which means more weight on the suspension, which means larger suspension parts, and so forth.

It would, if it weren't such a stupid design.

Both of which are toxic.