I think Ford will continue to have problems moving their F-150 Lightning BEV.
In our country, the pickup truck has become as much a symbol of masculinity and political statement as it is a useful utilitarian tool to transport heavy and bulky payloads. Why else would an office-bound city slicker pay $100,000 for one? The big three have made a lot of money selling these high-priced I’m-an-outdoor-kinda-guy symbols to a consumer group they had a significant role in creating.
The people that make up this truck-buying population are not what I would consider good candidates for buying a vehicle that is by design as an eco-friendly, save-the-planet, short-range, green version of a cowboy’s preferred transportation.
IOW… Ford made a mistake leading with Mustang and the Lightning, they would have been better off first electrifying one of their popular SUVs.
Wireless charging is a technology that allows electric vehicles (EVs) to receive power from coils embedded under the road surface,
That how I charge my iPhone… 
Interesting possible side affect. Needs a lot of testing
“Wireless charging involves high-voltage electricity and magnetic fields, which could pose some risks for humans and animals.”
I cannot see this being cost effective…
They’ve had one in operation in Sweden since 2018.
I agree. Just wanted to note it.
I think that is different technology.
“Energy is transferred from two tracks of rail in the road via a movable arm attached to the bottom of a vehicle”
Oops… you’re right, I posted the wrong site, the wireless test didn’t begin until 2021. Here’s the correct link:
Fascinating. That might be the answer to high density apt living.
Whether you are pro or con EV’s, this is not good
“GM’s October announcement that it was delaying production of two all-electric pickups at the plant by a full year and transferring nearly 1,000 workers to other GM facilities in Michigan.”
GM announces over 1,300 workers being laid off at 2 Michigan plants (foxbusiness.com)
When hype weans anything will revert to its mean.
The mistake was made in planning for changes. Like Ford, they apparently proceeded to ramp up their pickup truck EV production on the assumption that demand would be similar to the EV SUV and crossover market. It’s a classic case of not really understanding what motivates your customers for that product segment.
Good planning and not panicking would have prevented that mistake.
I think Ford saw what looked to them like an EV demand tsunami and decided to leverage their cash-cow pickup truck by making it doubly attractive. It was a bad idea, cowboys and wannabe’s don’t want to look like they are bowing to the sissies.
“These vehicles are ideal for many people, and we believe their appeal will grow over time. The reality, however, is that electric-vehicle demand today is not keeping up with the large influx of BEVs arriving at our dealerships prompted by the current regulations. BEVs are stacking up on our lots.”
This is hitting dealerships where they feel it most—in their pocketbooks. Until EV production began to catch demand early this year, most electric-powered cars and trucks were “pre-sold” or “reservation” vehicles, sold to consumers who simply needed the dealership for a place to pick it up and drive it away.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a46096079/car-dealers-say-ev-revolution-is-slowing-down/
The last sentence you quoted says a lot about some of the reasons BEV sales have slowed down in the US ie: “sold to consumers who simply needed the dealership for a place to pick it up and drive it away.”
When I was shopping for a BEV I noticed a big difference in the attitudes of the sales people at the dealerships I visited. They appeared markedly less enthusiastic about EV’s than they did about ICE models. They also had a lot less knowledge of the product and had to refer to other sources to answer even basic questions.
The US car market has been served by local dealerships for a hundred years, and over time they have evolved to make as much or more money in service and maintenance of the cars they sell than they make on the initial sales transaction. I suspect that’s why we are seeing the big push for hybrid vehicles. They are by far much more complex and subject to maintenance and repair issues than BEVs are.
BTW: I’m aware of the Consumer Reports article citing data that show that hybrids and ICE cars are less prone to problems than BEVs are. I think that’s a result of either faulty reporting, unfamiliarity of owners, new production issues, comparing software fixes to in-shop repairs or a combination of all of those things. I think time will prove that is the case because the inherent design of BEVs makes their reliability all but a sure thing.
H200h,
It has never been the closeness to the Sun that causes a problem. The radiation that is aimed at Earth, eventually reaches Earth. Instead the real problem is that increase in the radius of the Sun each and every year. Yes it might be 12.4 feet. I will take your word for that. But if it IS as much as 12.4 feet, then that is a tremendous increase in the radiating surface. I bet you could calculate the extra area (about 1/2 of the total added surface area each year will be radiating NEW heat toward Earth. That adds up to a HUGE amount of extra radiant energy, and the next year, even more area is added, because the growth rate increases each year, and the extra heat is not growing in a straight line, but a upward curved line that eventually will point toward an infinite increase, at which point Earth will be enveloped by the Sun. But not to worry, Earth will grow much too hot to support life millions of years BEFORE it burns up. We will all be dead, probably from lack of food, long before the Earth burns.
Then again, some of us have trucks because we have to. Even if you don’t need the carrying capacity, to get to some beaches and other locations we drive over large rocks.I need 4 wheel drive in some places on my driveway. Low slung vehicles can’t cut it. It is not unusual to see trucks with over 2 footor 3 foot clearance underneath.
You are incorrect in your reasoning.
An increase in the sun’s surface area will have zero effect on the amount of radiant heat that our earth absorbs from the sun. The amount of heat the earth absorbs from the sun is dependent on the distance between the earth and sun and on the surface area the earth presents to the sun, neither of which will change (aside from the 12.4’ per year.)
Now IF the EARTH was increasing it’s surface area, it would make a difference, but it’s not.
Your reasoning is flawed. The larger the sun becomes, the more energy it produces. That sounds bogus, but then when you realize that ALL of the Sun is a natural nuclear reactor, and all of the new surface area is radiating the same as all of the old surface area, it becomes plain that a larger nuclear reactor will send more energy to the Earth than would a smaller nuclear reactor. Just like a large 1000 watt light bulb will radiate more energy than a 40 watt light bulb. Those are scientific facts that can’t just be swept into the swamp of ESG baloney.