What is Ford trying to do? Its like running at a buzz saw. Maybe they think the glass incident spin and their misrepresentations on having their electric F150 pull 1 million lbs (when that apparently took all of 150hp given the steal wheels) is a way for them to spin and lie their way out of totally alienating their ICE buyers? No way that is going to work They are going to try to say their obsolete ICE stuff has electric pull ability? That won't work they can't mitigate the damage that way, they will only make things worse in terms of having ICE buyers hold off or sour. They aren't going to be able to trick Tesla or the community. They are going to seriously further damage their credibility with ICE buyers. Do they plan on ceasing to sell all new ICE trucks in the next few months? They are going to shoot themselves in both feet.
Tesla's explanation of the window incident is certainly plausible but would transparent metal shatter? Was it sabotage- is this what Ford is counting on?
The ac motor in the link (http://www.americantraction.com/accessories/ac-77/) would take up a pick up bed in volume, its about 5ftx5ftx3ft and it weighs about as much as the high end of a F150 at 5577lbs. It produces about about 22000 ftlbs of torque or 11,000 nm from zero to about 22 miles per hours and its peak power is at about 1000 rpms and its max is about 3000rpms but its continuous(ordinary) rate is about 10,000 ft lbs torque up to about 25mph. It would drain a 200kwh battery in the top trim cyber truck in about 15 minutes at peak capacity of 22k ftlbs or the full 1100nm (longer than a Nurburgring track run by 2x) it would take 30 minutes to drain that battery at is continuous rate of about 5500nm or 10,000 ftlbs. But here's the thing, the 4x model 3 motors in the tesla semi would weigh combined about 1/5 what that motor weighs and would take up about half the volume but my guess is for pulling if you had the platform you could run them at peak and not damage them and get that same amount of peak tractive power out of them but people don't discharge their car batteries in 15 min or 30 min and the inverter and wiring may not be up to the task and it may be bad for the batteries- certainly the semi would be more up to the task. A locomotive will have 6 of these tractive motors and they want these motors as heavy as possible to increase tractive friction. BNSF did an upgrade of some of their locomotives where they added 20,000 lbs of dead weight to the locomotive to help with pulling and they want that down low- these sit at the bottom of the train. Imagine what a perfect mate a battery stack is for these motors instead of a ICE engine. You might be able to get 5500 ftlbs torque out of a single model 3 motor even if that is far from the optimum for efficiency and reliability. That is 10x the pulling capacity of a 2019 Ford Raptor. A roadster power train with 3 motors produces 10,000nm presumably the Semi with 4 model 3 motors presumably produces more. If the wiring and the inverter can handle it and the batteries can handled it a tug mode could unleash things- might not even be needed- could definitely be unlocked in a Cybertruck prototype.
Tech Crunch is already trying to spin the Tesla video of the Cybertruck dragging a F150 up a hill backward in a tug. They said it was unfair because the Cybertruck is substantially heavier- no its the same weight range as a F150. Could have been the base model cybertruck that did that. Its a fair comparison because people who gave Ford $39,950 in adjusted dollars got a model like that one in the video and that is the type of F150 the Cybertruck will be replacing quite often and preventing new F150 sales as a result. Just love it. Musk stated the towing capacities but said the pulling capacity was practically infinite. And that is accurate. Sure for practical towing there is a limit to what you can brake and steer based on the weight and traction of the vehicle so you don't slip and slid and the braking- where braking is recuperative braking will be superior but still limited based on traction and heat. But the real issue is you might be able to channel 2200 ftlbs torque through a single model 3 motor without damaging it, the Semi uses Model 3 motors. Its just how much you draw from the batteries at once while keeping in their optimal operating range for durability and reliability and surely also the cost of the matching electronics and batteries and their wear and reliability. There is also concern with the tow bar and chassis integrity. So there are some practical limits.
Ford's people know this stuff. Can't have Phd mechanical engineers on staff and not know it. Ford's pulling of the train on steel wheels was dishonest because that doesn't require much power. Musk's 300klbs claim was honest because clearly he meant like pulling an air liner with reasonable speed and rubber tires all around on flat surfaces which is not what the model X did when it slowly pulled a jet liner- he meant pulling (not towing) at reasonable speed. So what is Ford's game. I think Ford is licensing Tesla pick up tech but presumably not all of it. Does it feel it will get a better look at the Cybertruck? But in the mean time these kinds of comparisons will be a lot worse for Ford's ICE Truck products than even Tesla against the world at the drag strip.
Tech Crunch like Ars Technica seems to be part of the media contingent that exists to mislead the public about the public interest for profit (something that really needs to be a high crime- can't lie to the public for money under any circumstances and think that should be legal or ethical- but is still unfortunately legal because we don't calculate speech quelling correctly right now to our severe detriment)
Tesla's explanation of the window incident is certainly plausible but would transparent metal shatter? Was it sabotage- is this what Ford is counting on?
The ac motor in the link (http://www.americantraction.com/accessories/ac-77/) would take up a pick up bed in volume, its about 5ftx5ftx3ft and it weighs about as much as the high end of a F150 at 5577lbs. It produces about about 22000 ftlbs of torque or 11,000 nm from zero to about 22 miles per hours and its peak power is at about 1000 rpms and its max is about 3000rpms but its continuous(ordinary) rate is about 10,000 ft lbs torque up to about 25mph. It would drain a 200kwh battery in the top trim cyber truck in about 15 minutes at peak capacity of 22k ftlbs or the full 1100nm (longer than a Nurburgring track run by 2x) it would take 30 minutes to drain that battery at is continuous rate of about 5500nm or 10,000 ftlbs. But here's the thing, the 4x model 3 motors in the tesla semi would weigh combined about 1/5 what that motor weighs and would take up about half the volume but my guess is for pulling if you had the platform you could run them at peak and not damage them and get that same amount of peak tractive power out of them but people don't discharge their car batteries in 15 min or 30 min and the inverter and wiring may not be up to the task and it may be bad for the batteries- certainly the semi would be more up to the task. A locomotive will have 6 of these tractive motors and they want these motors as heavy as possible to increase tractive friction. BNSF did an upgrade of some of their locomotives where they added 20,000 lbs of dead weight to the locomotive to help with pulling and they want that down low- these sit at the bottom of the train. Imagine what a perfect mate a battery stack is for these motors instead of a ICE engine. You might be able to get 5500 ftlbs torque out of a single model 3 motor even if that is far from the optimum for efficiency and reliability. That is 10x the pulling capacity of a 2019 Ford Raptor. A roadster power train with 3 motors produces 10,000nm presumably the Semi with 4 model 3 motors presumably produces more. If the wiring and the inverter can handle it and the batteries can handled it a tug mode could unleash things- might not even be needed- could definitely be unlocked in a Cybertruck prototype.
Tech Crunch is already trying to spin the Tesla video of the Cybertruck dragging a F150 up a hill backward in a tug. They said it was unfair because the Cybertruck is substantially heavier- no its the same weight range as a F150. Could have been the base model cybertruck that did that. Its a fair comparison because people who gave Ford $39,950 in adjusted dollars got a model like that one in the video and that is the type of F150 the Cybertruck will be replacing quite often and preventing new F150 sales as a result. Just love it. Musk stated the towing capacities but said the pulling capacity was practically infinite. And that is accurate. Sure for practical towing there is a limit to what you can brake and steer based on the weight and traction of the vehicle so you don't slip and slid and the braking- where braking is recuperative braking will be superior but still limited based on traction and heat. But the real issue is you might be able to channel 2200 ftlbs torque through a single model 3 motor without damaging it, the Semi uses Model 3 motors. Its just how much you draw from the batteries at once while keeping in their optimal operating range for durability and reliability and surely also the cost of the matching electronics and batteries and their wear and reliability. There is also concern with the tow bar and chassis integrity. So there are some practical limits.
Ford's people know this stuff. Can't have Phd mechanical engineers on staff and not know it. Ford's pulling of the train on steel wheels was dishonest because that doesn't require much power. Musk's 300klbs claim was honest because clearly he meant like pulling an air liner with reasonable speed and rubber tires all around on flat surfaces which is not what the model X did when it slowly pulled a jet liner- he meant pulling (not towing) at reasonable speed. So what is Ford's game. I think Ford is licensing Tesla pick up tech but presumably not all of it. Does it feel it will get a better look at the Cybertruck? But in the mean time these kinds of comparisons will be a lot worse for Ford's ICE Truck products than even Tesla against the world at the drag strip.
Tech Crunch like Ars Technica seems to be part of the media contingent that exists to mislead the public about the public interest for profit (something that really needs to be a high crime- can't lie to the public for money under any circumstances and think that should be legal or ethical- but is still unfortunately legal because we don't calculate speech quelling correctly right now to our severe detriment)
