Raptor and its future (EV Raptor)

[DFS]

Of course they are. Nuclear energy is used to create steam by boiling water rapidly, which in turn is used to activate and turn turbines, which generate electricity for the whole ship. Same as any nuclear power plant. Nuclear energy is not electricity, the energy obtained by breaking down atoms has to be converted into electricity. Those ships are pure electric vehicles

You are probably not aware, coal fire power plants, produce....electricity! There you go, we are officially the greenest country in the world! Nuclear power is electric, coal power is electric, and even gasoline is used to produce electricity! My Raptor now identifies as EV, thank you for clarifying that any process which produces net electricity is qualifies as an EV in your world.

 

[fts]

You are probably not aware, coal fire power plants, produce....electricity! There you go, we are officially the greenest country in the world! Nuclear power is electric, coal power is electric, and even gasoline is used to produce electricity! My Raptor now identifies as EV, thank you for clarifying that any process which produces net electricity is qualifies as an EV in your world.

Yep, so true. I am going to be so happy when we first stop burning coal for electricity

 

[DFS]

Yep, so true. I am going to be so happy when we first stop burning coal for electricity

Me too! We will just make it appear out of nowhere, something about thermodynamics and energy being created and destroyed? Nuclear energy should be the future, I think we agree on that. Water, wind, and solar all have their place as well, just not as primary grid power supplies. All these EV's demand significant amounts of energy that has to come from somewhere, and for now that's primarily coal powered plants or some nuclear plants. We need to address that issue before we stress our "renewable" energy infrastructure to death at the same time as having millions of people dependent on EV's.

 

[MurderedOutSVT]

Me too! We will just make it appear out of nowhere, something about thermodynamics and energy being created and destroyed? Nuclear energy should be the future, I think we agree on that. Water, wind, and solar all have their place as well, just not as primary grid power supplies. All these EV's demand significant amounts of energy that has to come from somewhere, and for now that's primarily coal powered plants or some nuclear plants. We need to address that issue before we stress our "renewable" energy infrastructure to death at the same time as having millions of people dependent on EV's.

Power from heat is also called *magic*

 

[fts]

100% with you on this, @DFS .

The big issue really is the shortcomings of our electrical grid, regardless of energy source. One of my big conflicts with EVs, is the increasing load they will put onto the electrical grid. I am hoping we will see that nuclear power (combined with all other sources) is the solution in the mid-term, but probably not for the long term (100-200+ years).

 

[K223]

Yeah, I hear you, that's not going to happen soon haha.

However, what is going to happen in my view is the EVs are going to show increased capabilities over ICE, and that is going to win over more customers. And I think that's what is happening with the F150 Lightning. According to Ford, 3/4 of 120K reservation holders are new to the brand. So, the first EV F150 is drawing in new customers. Just amazing to me.

In the case of the Raptor the situation is going to be similar. Take Rivian R1T. It has significantly more power, more than TRX, has more ground clearance by nearly 1.5"+, better approach/departure/breakover angles, has quad motors so torque can be directed over to any one wheel at any level, and has a completely flat bottom, which will make it easier to offroad. On top of all this, it is going to be only 100-200 lbs heavier than base Raptor, and its center of gravity is nearly 2 feet lower than the Raptor.

For offroading purposes, how do you beat those specs in any ICE? Yes, it won't race in Baja and won't have an exhaust sound. WhopdiDoo! Functional vs. emotional. I am willing to compromise a little bit of range to get those functional advantages for my use case scenarios, I doubt it will be an issue for me. Being emission fee is just the icing on the cake, not the ultimate purpose.

The Rivian looks innovative even from an EV perspective with those quad motors. I believe the weight savings on the R1T is due to its truly sized between a mid and a full sized truck. EV’s are normally just heavy and not too much you can do about it, with those large battery packs. GM and Tesla want to produce the dream EV do all truck first. Great and all, but most can’t afford those and they are big and heavy and will consume a lot of electrons. What happen to conserving power and being green and all first? It’s an EV so we can let it eat big time no matter?

Ford and Rivian are two that will produce sensible options first and Ami think will come out with performance models as time goes by.

Did anyone read the articles about Ford possibly sandbagging on the range of the Lightning? Sounds like a reviewer was in the truck with an engineer and the truck showed 476 miles of range remaining. The battery was at something like 80%. Ford not showing there cards before production or were they really still working on squeezing out more range? Maybe they will come back and say 500 miles of range while not towing and up to 300 while towing 8k pounds. Who knows. So far I give Ford credit to taking the real world into account and what trucks get used for. If Ford screws this up it can hurt sales for a long time and they probably want to stay on top. Interesting.

 

[melvimbe]

For offroading purposes, how do you beat those specs in any ICE? Yes, it won't race in Baja and won't have an exhaust sound. WhopdiDoo! Functional vs. emotional. I am willing to compromise a little bit of range to get those functional advantages for my use case scenarios, I doubt it will be an issue for me. Being emission fee is just the icing on the cake, not the ultimate purpose.

I think you're greatly underestimating the importance of range. Really, it's not just range but the ability to refuel/recharge and do it quickly. If all you want is a commuter vehicle with the ability to go offroad for an afternoon, then it's fine. If you need a vehicle that you can use on a weekend trip with a lot of hassle, or you need to bug out of town for whatever reason, then an EV isn't going to cut it. Not as they currently are anyway.

And sorry, but the nuclear submarine example is really apples and oranges. No one has any issue with electric motors, the concern is battery vs fuel tank.

 

[melvimbe]

The Rivian looks innovative even from an EV perspective with those quad motors. I believe the weight savings on the R1T is due to its truly sized between a mid and a full sized truck. EV’s are normally just heavy and not too much you can do about it, with those large battery packs. GM and Tesla want to produce the dream EV do all truck first. Great and all, but most can’t afford those and they are big and heavy and will consume a lot of electrons. What happen to conserving power and being green and all first? It’s an EV so we can let it eat big time no matter?

Ford and Rivian are two that will produce sensible options first and Ami think will come out with performance models as time goes by.

Agreed that Ford took a much smarter approach in introducing EVs than others. Mach E was clearly meant to compete with Tesla, while Lightning was designed to gain mass adoption for the common guy.

Did anyone read the articles about Ford possibly sandbagging on the range of the Lightning? Sounds like a reviewer was in the truck with an engineer and the truck showed 476 miles of range remaining. The battery was at something like 80%. Ford not showing there cards before production or were they really still working on squeezing out more range? Maybe they will come back and say 500 miles of range while not towing and up to 300 while towing 8k pounds. Who knows. So far I give Ford credit to taking the real world into account and what trucks get used for. If Ford screws this up it can hurt sales for a long time and they probably want to stay on top. Interesting.

Don't know what article you're referring to, but my understand that the Lightning will adjust the range based on the anticipated, or actually programmed in, route you are taking. The trip computer, or whatever they call it, will use the elevation and possible traffic to adjust the range, So yes, if you don't have much payload and are traveling downhill on an empty road, the range will adjust upward.

My guess is that the range Ford gave is used whatever the standard route is for EPA numbers.

 

[dixonk]

Yeah, I hear you, that's not going to happen soon haha.

However, what is going to happen in my view is the EVs are going to show increased capabilities over ICE, and that is going to win over more customers. And I think that's what is happening with the F150 Lightning. According to Ford, 3/4 of 120K reservation holders are new to the brand. So, the first EV F150 is drawing in new customers. Just amazing to me.

In the case of the Raptor the situation is going to be similar. Take Rivian R1T. It has significantly more power, more than TRX, has more ground clearance by nearly 1.5"+, better approach/departure/breakover angles, has quad motors so torque can be directed over to any one wheel at any level, and has a completely flat bottom, which will make it easier to offroad. On top of all this, it is going to be only 100-200 lbs heavier than base Raptor, and its center of gravity is nearly 2 feet lower than the Raptor.

For offroading purposes, how do you beat those specs in any ICE? Yes, it won't race in Baja and won't have an exhaust sound. WhopdiDoo! Functional vs. emotional. I am willing to compromise a little bit of range to get those functional advantages for my use case scenarios, I doubt it will be an issue for me. Being emission fee is just the icing on the cake, not the ultimate purpose.

Only problem I have with the Rivian is the fact that it is butt ugly. Otherwise it checks all the boxes.

 

[fts]

I think you're greatly underestimating the importance of range. Really, it's not just range but the ability to refuel/recharge and do it quickly. If all you want is a commuter vehicle with the ability to go offroad for an afternoon, then it's fine. If you need a vehicle that you can use on a weekend trip with a lot of hassle, or you need to bug out of town for whatever reason, then an EV isn't going to cut it. Not as they currently are anyway.

And sorry, but the nuclear submarine example is really apples and oranges. No one has any issue with electric motors, the concern is battery vs fuel tank.

I am with you on the range, but it may not be as bad as some people think, I really do not know.

As for the submarine reference, it was within the context of the poster mentioning the military won't trust electric-powered vehicles over diesel-powered vehicles. It was not meant to be a comparison between an electric car and a submarine; I haven't lost my mind that much... well, yet!