19 ms·

It's great to see the best selling vehicle in the US be zero emissions. It's wonderful. But this truck will be very heavy, very tall, and very fast. Drivers ar

It's great to see the best selling vehicle in the US be zero emissions. It's wonderful. But this truck will be very heavy, very tall, and very fast. Drivers are already the leading killers of children, and more and more people are being killed while walking and cycling. I'm very worried about the effect of making this vehicle even faster and heavier. Hopefully reduced deaths from pollution offset this.

dubcanada 5y ago
Wait, so you're against cars? I am confused as to what any of that has to do with the new electric F-150.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  EVs are heavier by nature (this vehicle’s battery pack alone is ~1800 lbs). Your average driver is not good at driving. The F150 sells very well. Ergo, more risk of more property damage and human harm. You can’t get around physics. More mass with more force carries more risk.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    > (this vehicle’s battery pack alone is ~1800 lbs) The weight of an entire small car!
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Yup. For a while I owned a 3 cylinder Sprint. Was 1750 pounds.
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      Yeah, but it's not like the drivetrain of an F150 is light. A fully dressed Coyote V8, 10R80, driveshaft, differentials, subframes, exhaust, gas tank (with fuel), radiator & supports, fuel lines, etc, etc add up. So the batteries weight 1800 lbs, but your also removing like 1400lbs of stuff. It's pretty likely that the Lightning will weight in at barely more than a hybrid F150, and the lower range F150s, when introduced, will probably weight the same as the ICE versions. A little appreciated fact is that a Model 3 and a Mustang have the exact same weight ranges: the SR RWD Model 3 weights about what a ecoboost Mustang does, and a GT500 Mustang is actually about 200lbs heavier than a Model 3 AWD LR Performance.
  - dubcanada 5y ago
    Ya I get that, but the statement is a society/government issue and has nothing to do with Ford.
  - defaultname 5y ago
    The curb weight of the Lightning seems to be approximately the same as the ICE F150s. 4600-5000lbs. Batteries are heavy, but so are engines and transmissions. The battery being low should dramatically improve the safety of the vehicle by improving stability. It's still a huge vehicle, though. It would be nice if we trended smaller, and left vehicles like this to people who actually need it.
    - drcoopster 5y ago
      The new Lightning comes in around 6500 lbs. Maybe you saw a number for the old Lightning from the 90s, which was around 4600 lbs.
      - defaultname 5y ago
        My mistake then. I read a response post to the new vehicle that claimed it would come in at 5000lbs. Can't find anything authoritative, but everyone seems to be speculating more around 6500 as you said.
  - jtdev 5y ago
    Does being hit by a 6500 lb vehicle as a cyclist or pedestrian really differ materially from being hit by a 7500 lb vehicle...? Constantly telling people that existing on earth as a human is bad for x, y, z is a good strategy if you want people to tune out and stop paying attention to what you're saying.
    - drcoopster 5y ago
      > Does being hit by a 6500 lb vehicle as a cyclist or pedestrian really differ materially from being hit by a 7500 lb vehicle...? Depends how fast it's going.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    In terms of kinetic energy, adding 20% to the mass is like speeding up from 50 to 55. 40% is like speeding up to 60. If you are worried about vehicle weight, worry more about speed.
    - cloverich 5y ago
      They are heavier and faster (acceleration).
    - qchris 5y ago
      Completely aside from the point you're trying to make: it's a pet peeve of mine when people try to describe collisions in terms of kinetic energy. It's the wrong metric--the important conserved quantity in collisions is momentum, which is simply linear mass*velocity (not quadratic velocity). After that, it becomes a matter of calculating the rate of momentum transfer, or impulse. That's why crumple zones are important for vehicle-vehicle collisions--not because they turn kinetic energy into a stored form of potential energy in deformation, but because they drastically decrease the rate at which momentum changes.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        Ultimately you want your body to collide as in-elastically as possible with restraints. The crumple zone spreads that energy transfer out over a longer period of time.
  - thrdbndndn 5y ago
    Is there any actual data that shows there is correlation between the mass of vehicles and number of people killed? Obviously heavier cars are more deadly when hitting people with all the other variables fixed, but not all these variables are independent. They could also depend on the weight of the cars. For example, maybe the car becomes easier to control/steer when it's heavier (totally made up point), which counters the inherent risk introduced by the weight. Without real-world data I won't be too quick to say heavier car is more dangerous.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/808569 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
      - thrdbndndn 5y ago
        Thanks for the link! I'll post the conclusion for the light trucks weight reduction part (fatalities part, there is also non-serious injuries part in the paper) here as TL;DR for other people. Reducing the mass of light trucks would significantly increase the fatality risk of their occupants in collisions with objects and big trucks. But downsizing of light trucks would significantly reduce risk to pedestrians, motorcyclists and, above all, passenger car occupants. There would be little effect on rollovers because, historically, there has been little correlation between the mass of light trucks and their rollover stability (width relative to center-of-gravity height). There would also be little change in collisions between two light trucks, if both trucks are reduced in mass. Even though the effect of mass reductions is statistically significant in four of the six types of crashes, the net effect for all types of crashes combined is small, because some of the individual effects are positive and others are negative. The benefits of truck downsizing for pedestrians and car occupants could more than offset the fatality increase for light truck occupants. It is estimated that a 100-pound reduction could result in a modest net savings of 40 lives, (0.26 percent of baseline fatalities). However, this estimate is not statistically significant, the 2-sigma confidence bounds range from a savings of 100 to an increase of 20 fatalities; the 3-sigma bounds range from a savings of 130 to an increase of 50 fatalities. It is concluded that a reduction in the weight of light trucks would have a negligible overall effect, but if there is an effect, it is most likely a modest reduction of fatalities
  - jrsj 5y ago
    The location of the battery also means lower center of gravity and probably better control over the vehicle, and the curb weight is about the same. These will probably be net safer than ICE F-150s
  - benlivengood 5y ago
    Comparing actual stopping distances for passenger cars and light pickups: https://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-braking.html https://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual... https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-and-worst-braking-distances/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-and-worst-br... Basically light duty trucks take an extra 10-30 feet stopping from 60 MPH. This is dwarfed by distance travelled during reaction time. In the 1960's sedans were in the ~150 ft range for 60-0, about what modern pickups achieve. Heavier vehicles have more kinetic energy at the same speed but the braking force for all vehicles is proportional to mass and friction with the road surface which depends on tire quality and road material, and since acceleration is proportional to mass from a given force the deceleration from braking is basically the same at any mass with equivalent tires and road surface.
- tyingq 5y ago
  It's heavier because of the batteries: 2022 Ford Lightning: 6,500 lbs 2021 Ford F-150 Hybrid: 5,794 lbs 2021 Ford F-150 ICE: 5,014 lbs (All 4-door models)
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    1999 Chevy S-10: 3241 lbs and it came with a proper 6-foot bed, not this 5.5-foot garbage.
thanatos519 5y ago
Don't forget that electric vehicles are almost silent.
- keanebean86 5y ago
  I think they're supposed to generate some kind of sound at low speeds. Or at least the government wants them to. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/14/2016-28804/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-minimum-sound-requirements-for-hybrid-and-electric-vehicles https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/14/2016-28...
- coder543 5y ago
  Nope. All electric vehicles sold in the US since September 2020 must have a Pedestrian Warning System that emits noise at speeds less than 18mph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sound... Once you're above 10mph or 15mph the road noise from the tires makes more noise than the quiet gas engines we have these days anyways. This electric F-150 will not be "almost silent" in any way that matters to a pedestrian. It will certainly be less obnoxious to everyone than those grating diesel engine trucks, and I hope no one complains about the loss of that noise pollution.
  - svnpenn 5y ago
    > Once you're above 10mph or 15mph the road noise from the tires makes more noise than the quiet gas engines we have these days anyways. Are you mental? I live on a residential street, not even too busy, and every single day, I hear these idiot gunning their motors to be cool. With electric its a non issue.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    Yeah, EVs emit a really annoying sound. You don't really notice as a driver rolling around with the windows up, but when you pull one into a garage with the windows down, you hear that "WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOOWOWOWOWOOWEEEEEEERRRRR" echoing all over.
perardi 5y ago
…what a non sequitur. The F-150 is already a bloated monstrosity, it makes no difference if it’s electric. It’s some tiny bit faster, but they’re all fast enough.
- csharptwdec19 5y ago
  Well, There's speed, and then there's acceleration. This new Lightning (putting it that way because F150 Lightning once corresponded to a gas-guzzling Supercharged V8 trim) has 775ft/lb of Torque. For reference, the existing models are between 265 and 510 ft/lb. Additionally, one of the benefits of an electric motor, is that torque is essentially instantly available, compared to an ICE where there's only a slim power bad where that max torque range is hit. Unless Ford 'governs' acceleration in software, I can see some lead-foots getting themselves into trouble quickly. They probably -will-, but I'd expect them to offer some sort of switch for that, lest the Ford zealots grab their pitchforks. Let us not forget that a lot of 'Car guys' are arguably insane. When Ford considered switching the Mustang to a Front Wheel Drive Mazda design, they had to deal with death threats!
  - zzzeek 5y ago
    this is my biggest concern. my dad has a tesla, and you put your foot on that thing it feels like a jet on the runway. electric motors are allowing everyday, consumer level cars that can do 0-60 faster than a Ferrari, and silently as well. it leads to doing more aggressive turns and stuff like that which you can only pull off with maximum acceleration, which means scenarios like the left turn where you're whipping out like silent lightning to beat the oncoming cars, and some kid on a bike suddenly entering the road to your left where you're going, and in the opposite way in which you are looking (at the oncoming cars to the right) is toast.
    - zzzeek 5y ago
      to all the idiot downmodders, I am not advocating against electric cars, I am advocating against their software allowing unfettered acceleration as well as the lack of audible cues to pedestrians (some hybrid cars are now adding artifical sounds for this issue).
ameister14 5y ago
>Drivers are already the leading killers of children, and more and more people are being killed while walking and cycling. I think more worrisome is the center console - pedestrian deaths had been going down for 20 years until smartphones became widespread and we've had increases every year since.
- mfer 5y ago
  With the introduction of smart phones and social media we've seen lots of negative effects increase. For example, teen suicide was decreasing until they were introduced and then started to increase again. Girls especially. I wish there was more discussion and acknowledgement of the dangers here.
  - hrktb 5y ago
    You have a point, but I also think we should be thinking beyond smartphones and try to act on what they are used for. Not in a "guns don't kill people way", but because I think smarphone helped spread society's worse effects on girls, but they were already in a very shitty position, and we can't just get back to the status quo before the smarphones and social networks. We can of course also work on reducing sns negative impacts, but I think it will also be a bad, long and thorny way before seeing improvements.
  - ccsnags 5y ago
    When I’m on a long trip with friends or family we play a game trying to spot people on their phones by how poorly they are driving. Police are extra points. You would be shocked at how many cops you see looking down at their lap while driving. I would rather drive next to people with .09 blood alcohol than someone on their phone. Social media and cell phones are very convenient, but come with major drawbacks that must be addressed. Phones, for many young people, are just mental disorders with a touch screen.
- TypeCaste 5y ago
  I ride a motorcycle, and it seems like 30% of the drivers I see on the road have their phones out.
bb123 5y ago
Electric vehicles often have much better safety credentials than their ICE powered counterparts for a few reasons: * All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving a lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old F150 in a moose (or child!) test. * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important requirement in road safety standards. * The electric motors are able to respond with torque far faster (in ms) than an ICE engine, so traction and stability control are more effective. Again good for things like the moose test. * Switching our road transport to electric will probably save more children, and the adults they will become, from a lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution than better pedestrian safety features ever will.
- jschwartzi 5y ago
  > * All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving a lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old F150 in a moose (or child!) test. The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's simply a test of whether the occupants will survive hitting a moose. I would wager anything that is designed to pass the moose test will kill anything that it hits that is below the moose's center of gravity. So actually the vehicle is way less safe for pedestrians than a vehicle that would fail the moose test. But if all that matters is the safety of the occupant I guess this is okay. > * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important requirement in road safety standards. The kind of "crumple zone" that enhances pedestrian and cyclist safety is more like a beer can. Again, the crumple zones in this vehicle are designed to keep the occupants safe but not designed to keep any other road user safe.
  - coder543 5y ago
    > The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. The moose test is about safely dodging around a moose that wanders out onto the road without wrecking the vehicle. Why did you write this long comment as if you were an expert on the moose test if you don't even know what the moose test is? That's an incredibly disingenuous thing to do. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9Oo5TMiWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9Oo5TMiWw
proc0 5y ago
So they should not sell any? What's your point?
voidfunc 5y ago
Won't somebody think of the children please?!? If you get hit by any vehicle you're going to have a bad time. This vehicle is not an exception.
- woah 5y ago
  You are contending that there is no difference in pedestrian fatalities between vehicles? And also that it isn’t harder to see children in an unnecessarily tall vehicle?
  - jrsj 5y ago
    Is a truck an unnecessarily tall vehicle or is replacing sedans with taller hatchbacks we pretend are SUVs an unnecessarily tall vehicle? Because one is tall for a reason and the other is tall purely due to consumer preference.
    - woah 5y ago
      What reason are pickup trucks tall for, other than assuaging the drivers doubts about their own masculinity? You can get just as much construction work done with a Toyota Tacoma or even a Mercedes utility van.
      - jrsj 5y ago
        Gaming EPA fuel efficiency regulations. Making them taller/wider essentially saves the manufacturers money because those regulations aren’t very well designed.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  It makes a big difference where one is hit. Being hit in the head by a head-height truck grille is a lot different from being hit in the shins by a 1964 Datsun. There's also the small matter that nobody driving this truck can see anything at all for ten feet to the front.
  - deleted 5y ago
bobince 5y ago
It needn't have been this tall. With the internal combustion engine out, Ford could have designed a lower, more curved, less deadly front end. Instead, they kept the high nose and used the space as a trunk. After all, injuring fewer pedestrians sells no cars. Indeed, the market prefers an enormous, deliberately threatening-looking chariot that makes you feel big and virile. Ford are behind this game in that they haven't given their truck an explicitly hostile name like “People Mulcher”.
- dls2016 5y ago
  Smells like a steak and seats 35! https://youtu.be/PI_Jl5WFQkA https://youtu.be/PI_Jl5WFQkA
- jtdev 5y ago
  Roads are made for large dangerous machines that move fast and can hurt you.
  - woah 5y ago
    That’s why they should only have one lane for cars with a 25mph speed limit.
  - hrktb 5y ago
    That's so sad this sarcasm basically became fact after so many decades of going the wrong way. It's also why cities are taking back whole roads from cars when they can, as it's so hard to preserve a middle ground in a lot of areas.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Roads predate cars. Cars took them over from people and far slower horses.
    - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
      So what? Its a fact today. Nobody going back to horses.
mfer 5y ago
Trucks very much have a place in society. Farmers, construction workers, and some other areas definitely need them. The trend that they need to be an everyday vehicle for anyone is something that should be looked at. What is the psychology and intentional planning that's caused this shift? What subtle population engineering has lead to this without people realizing it?
- ballenf 5y ago
  Speaking personally, I've never owned a truck but began considering it during Covid. Why? The cost premium of hiring someone for home improvement jobs vs. DIY seems to have gone up. And the difficulty of finding someone qualified, reputable and with available capacity seems to have become exponentially higher. "So I guess I need a truck" is what I've recently been thinking.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    A van is better in almost every dimension for construction. Effectively the only reason to own a pickup truck (vs some other better utility vehicle) is if you have trailer that needs it.
    - igetspam 5y ago
      Disagree. I can fit lots of oddly shaped things in the bed of a truck. Vans have walls and doors that create hard limits.
    - itsyaboi 5y ago
      When you say "construction", are you referring to something like drywall/framing/roofing or electrical/trim work? I ask because fitting a stack of OSB sheets in a van can be anywhere from challenging to impossible (depending on the type of van of course). Certain trim levels of the F150 for example, are designed with the specific requirement of being able to accommodate standard sizes of construction materials, like a 4x8 sheet of OSB.
      - 5y ago
toast0 5y ago
Fuel efficiency standards killed the small truck. In the turn of the century EV era, Ford had an electric Ranger which was built on the much smaller (at the time) Ranger platform. But you can't make an ICE small truck that meets the 200x updated CAFE standards, so the small trucks either disapeared (S10) or got bigger (toyota small trucks), or got bigger then disappeared and later reappeared still big (Ranger). An EV truck presumably can be any size, but there's no current small truck platform to build on.
- a2tech 5y ago
  I have a few friends that are engineers in the auto companies. Its kind of amazing how many negative impacts the CAFE standards had--not on purpose (hopefully), but through unintended consequences. Apparently the Nissan Leaf for example was strictly manufactured to generate credits/offset the environmental impact of the Nissan truck and van line that could not be adjusted to meet the CAFE standards. My dad had a Ranger in 97 that was just about the perfect truck for day-to-day use. It fit 2 adults comfortably, had a tiny 4 cylinder engine, got great gas milage, and could be used to pull a small trailer. He was crushed when Ford got rid of the Ranger. And what they've released now is basically the size of the old F-150 from the 90s
  - Drunk_Engineer 5y ago
    The "negative" impacts of CAFE standards were entirely by design. They were written that way to benefit the domestic auto industry, which is very uncompetitive in the small and midsized vehicle segments. By making smaller vehicles uncompetitive (or simply unavailable), it eliminated some serious competition.
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      I think a lot of people don't realize how many regulations are designed by incumbent domestic companies explicitly for the purposes of making foreign companies and upstarts noncompetitive. You're right that CAFE is literally designed to favor trucks. And the definition is so vague that even vehicles like the PT Cruiser are considered Light Trucks for the purposes of CAFE. It is also designed to hurt small cars, because vehicles with footprints (wheelbase * wheel wide) smaller than a Mustang (literally, to the square inch) have to face ever-more-strict CAFE standards. As a result, cars like the Fit are might face a CAFE penalty while a base F150 does a-okay despite getting like half the fuel economy. And that's not even getting into BS like flex fuel credits (basically, being flex fuel capable is like adding ~5mpg to the vehicle CAFE score). This is exactly why every small vehicle is a crossover anymore (they are light trucks for CAFE purposes), and why cars like the Civic get are today, the size an Accord was in 2005 (CAFE is less strict the larger the vehicle is).
lastofthemojito 5y ago
Now the interesting thing will what fraction of F-150 sales will be electric and how that fraction changes over the next several years.
woeirua 5y ago
Yes, it will be heavier, and yes it will have more acceleration... But newer vehicles also have AEB with pedestrian detection. If these vehicles displace older existing vehicles without those safety systems we will see fewer fatalities overall. Most kids and pedestrians are hit at low speed, not at 60+ mph due to the driver not paying attention or not being able to see the pedestrian. While AEB can’t save all pedestrians that would otherwise be hit, we know that these systems lead to big reductions in preventable accidents [1]. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31381447/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31381447/
chrisBob 5y ago
The problem with trucks like the F-150 is all marketing. My impression after seeing a recent F-150 is that the goal is to feel big and luxurious. Even on the ICE version of the truck, the area under the hood is mostly empty. The reason an entire car hide in front of the bumper, out of the driver's view is that it makes the truck look cooler. The window sills are also at a silly height, to make the truck feel bigger, but at least that doesn't create the same safety issues (for everyone outside the truck) with no real value.
brandonmenc 5y ago
Motorcycles and busses are more dangerous for pedestrians than trucks. "Compared with cars, buses were 11.85 times and motorcycles were 3.77 times more likely per mile to kill children 0–14 years old. Buses were 16.70 times more likely to kill adults age 85 or older than were cars." https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232
- Dah00n 5y ago
  A truck in this discussion is a car, not a real truck. A bus is not comparable to a car. Compare a bus to a real truck. A motorcycle will in every single statistics drive faster on average than a car. I'm not saying your point is wrong but it is at a minimum like a click bait title.
  - brandonmenc 5y ago
    "Passenger cars and light trucks (vans, pickups, and sport utility vehicles) accounted for 46.1% and 39.1%, respectively, of the 4875 deaths, with the remainder split among motorcycles, buses, and heavy trucks." If you count crossovers as cars, trucks make up like 35% of auto sales and account for 39% of pedestrian deaths. There is nothing to be concerned about. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-demand-by-vehicle-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-...
- analog31 5y ago
  That's probably because buses have more interaction with pedestrians, both due to people getting in and out, but also, operation in urban areas where there's a lot of pedestrian traffic.
Der_Einzige 5y ago
Automatic breaking systems are getting even better and have been pretty good for awhile. You can expect preventable fatalities of pedestrians and other drivers from cars and trucks to decline as this technology becomes better.
Unklejoe 5y ago
I feel like this same criticism should apply for the Model S Plaid then too since it accelerates faster than almost every car and is heavier than most cars as well. I’m not sure how much the weight really matters if you’re colliding with a cyclist or pedestrian anyway though. Valid point about the height, but it’s no different than any other modern truck on the road today (all of which are too high if you ask me).
peter422 5y ago
I’m very passionate about pedestrian deaths in cities (SF specifically), but based on all the incidents I can remember I don’t think pickup trucks are causing a disproportionate number. Pedestrian deaths are mostly caused by normal cars going at high speeds through red lights or crosswalks. A truck sold with automatic braking would likely be much safer than a car from the past in terms of pedestrian safety.
- Drunk_Engineer 5y ago
  SF just has fewer trucks, which is why you probably don't recall too many incidents. Nationwide, increasing number of SUV/trucks is a major problem in ped safety.

dubcanada 5y ago

Wait, so you're against cars? I am confused as to what any of that has to do with the new electric F-150.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
EVs are heavier by nature (this vehicle’s battery pack alone is ~1800 lbs). Your average driver is not good at driving. The F150 sells very well. Ergo, more risk of more property damage and human harm. You can’t get around physics. More mass with more force carries more risk.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  > (this vehicle’s battery pack alone is ~1800 lbs) The weight of an entire small car!
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Yup. For a while I owned a 3 cylinder Sprint. Was 1750 pounds.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    Yeah, but it's not like the drivetrain of an F150 is light. A fully dressed Coyote V8, 10R80, driveshaft, differentials, subframes, exhaust, gas tank (with fuel), radiator & supports, fuel lines, etc, etc add up. So the batteries weight 1800 lbs, but your also removing like 1400lbs of stuff. It's pretty likely that the Lightning will weight in at barely more than a hybrid F150, and the lower range F150s, when introduced, will probably weight the same as the ICE versions. A little appreciated fact is that a Model 3 and a Mustang have the exact same weight ranges: the SR RWD Model 3 weights about what a ecoboost Mustang does, and a GT500 Mustang is actually about 200lbs heavier than a Model 3 AWD LR Performance.
- dubcanada 5y ago
  Ya I get that, but the statement is a society/government issue and has nothing to do with Ford.
- defaultname 5y ago
  The curb weight of the Lightning seems to be approximately the same as the ICE F150s. 4600-5000lbs. Batteries are heavy, but so are engines and transmissions. The battery being low should dramatically improve the safety of the vehicle by improving stability. It's still a huge vehicle, though. It would be nice if we trended smaller, and left vehicles like this to people who actually need it.
  - drcoopster 5y ago
    The new Lightning comes in around 6500 lbs. Maybe you saw a number for the old Lightning from the 90s, which was around 4600 lbs.
    - defaultname 5y ago
      My mistake then. I read a response post to the new vehicle that claimed it would come in at 5000lbs. Can't find anything authoritative, but everyone seems to be speculating more around 6500 as you said.
- jtdev 5y ago
  Does being hit by a 6500 lb vehicle as a cyclist or pedestrian really differ materially from being hit by a 7500 lb vehicle...? Constantly telling people that existing on earth as a human is bad for x, y, z is a good strategy if you want people to tune out and stop paying attention to what you're saying.
  - drcoopster 5y ago
    > Does being hit by a 6500 lb vehicle as a cyclist or pedestrian really differ materially from being hit by a 7500 lb vehicle...? Depends how fast it's going.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- maxerickson 5y ago
  In terms of kinetic energy, adding 20% to the mass is like speeding up from 50 to 55. 40% is like speeding up to 60. If you are worried about vehicle weight, worry more about speed.
  - cloverich 5y ago
    They are heavier and faster (acceleration).
  - qchris 5y ago
    Completely aside from the point you're trying to make: it's a pet peeve of mine when people try to describe collisions in terms of kinetic energy. It's the wrong metric--the important conserved quantity in collisions is momentum, which is simply linear mass*velocity (not quadratic velocity). After that, it becomes a matter of calculating the rate of momentum transfer, or impulse. That's why crumple zones are important for vehicle-vehicle collisions--not because they turn kinetic energy into a stored form of potential energy in deformation, but because they drastically decrease the rate at which momentum changes.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Ultimately you want your body to collide as in-elastically as possible with restraints. The crumple zone spreads that energy transfer out over a longer period of time.
- thrdbndndn 5y ago
  Is there any actual data that shows there is correlation between the mass of vehicles and number of people killed? Obviously heavier cars are more deadly when hitting people with all the other variables fixed, but not all these variables are independent. They could also depend on the weight of the cars. For example, maybe the car becomes easier to control/steer when it's heavier (totally made up point), which counters the inherent risk introduced by the weight. Without real-world data I won't be too quick to say heavier car is more dangerous.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/808569 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
    - thrdbndndn 5y ago
      Thanks for the link! I'll post the conclusion for the light trucks weight reduction part (fatalities part, there is also non-serious injuries part in the paper) here as TL;DR for other people. Reducing the mass of light trucks would significantly increase the fatality risk of their occupants in collisions with objects and big trucks. But downsizing of light trucks would significantly reduce risk to pedestrians, motorcyclists and, above all, passenger car occupants. There would be little effect on rollovers because, historically, there has been little correlation between the mass of light trucks and their rollover stability (width relative to center-of-gravity height). There would also be little change in collisions between two light trucks, if both trucks are reduced in mass. Even though the effect of mass reductions is statistically significant in four of the six types of crashes, the net effect for all types of crashes combined is small, because some of the individual effects are positive and others are negative. The benefits of truck downsizing for pedestrians and car occupants could more than offset the fatality increase for light truck occupants. It is estimated that a 100-pound reduction could result in a modest net savings of 40 lives, (0.26 percent of baseline fatalities). However, this estimate is not statistically significant, the 2-sigma confidence bounds range from a savings of 100 to an increase of 20 fatalities; the 3-sigma bounds range from a savings of 130 to an increase of 50 fatalities. It is concluded that a reduction in the weight of light trucks would have a negligible overall effect, but if there is an effect, it is most likely a modest reduction of fatalities
- jrsj 5y ago
  The location of the battery also means lower center of gravity and probably better control over the vehicle, and the curb weight is about the same. These will probably be net safer than ICE F-150s
- benlivengood 5y ago
  Comparing actual stopping distances for passenger cars and light pickups: https://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-braking.html https://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual... https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-and-worst-braking-distances/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/best-and-worst-br... Basically light duty trucks take an extra 10-30 feet stopping from 60 MPH. This is dwarfed by distance travelled during reaction time. In the 1960's sedans were in the ~150 ft range for 60-0, about what modern pickups achieve. Heavier vehicles have more kinetic energy at the same speed but the braking force for all vehicles is proportional to mass and friction with the road surface which depends on tire quality and road material, and since acceleration is proportional to mass from a given force the deceleration from braking is basically the same at any mass with equivalent tires and road surface.
tyingq 5y ago
It's heavier because of the batteries: 2022 Ford Lightning: 6,500 lbs 2021 Ford F-150 Hybrid: 5,794 lbs 2021 Ford F-150 ICE: 5,014 lbs (All 4-door models)
- jeffbee 5y ago
  1999 Chevy S-10: 3241 lbs and it came with a proper 6-foot bed, not this 5.5-foot garbage.

thanatos519 5y ago

Don't forget that electric vehicles are almost silent.

keanebean86 5y ago
I think they're supposed to generate some kind of sound at low speeds. Or at least the government wants them to. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/14/2016-28804/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-minimum-sound-requirements-for-hybrid-and-electric-vehicles https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/14/2016-28...
coder543 5y ago
Nope. All electric vehicles sold in the US since September 2020 must have a Pedestrian Warning System that emits noise at speeds less than 18mph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sound... Once you're above 10mph or 15mph the road noise from the tires makes more noise than the quiet gas engines we have these days anyways. This electric F-150 will not be "almost silent" in any way that matters to a pedestrian. It will certainly be less obnoxious to everyone than those grating diesel engine trucks, and I hope no one complains about the loss of that noise pollution.
- svnpenn 5y ago
  > Once you're above 10mph or 15mph the road noise from the tires makes more noise than the quiet gas engines we have these days anyways. Are you mental? I live on a residential street, not even too busy, and every single day, I hear these idiot gunning their motors to be cool. With electric its a non issue.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Yeah, EVs emit a really annoying sound. You don't really notice as a driver rolling around with the windows up, but when you pull one into a garage with the windows down, you hear that "WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOOWOWOWOWOOWEEEEEEERRRRR" echoing all over.

perardi 5y ago

…what a non sequitur. The F-150 is already a bloated monstrosity, it makes no difference if it’s electric. It’s some tiny bit faster, but they’re all fast enough.

csharptwdec19 5y ago
Well, There's speed, and then there's acceleration. This new Lightning (putting it that way because F150 Lightning once corresponded to a gas-guzzling Supercharged V8 trim) has 775ft/lb of Torque. For reference, the existing models are between 265 and 510 ft/lb. Additionally, one of the benefits of an electric motor, is that torque is essentially instantly available, compared to an ICE where there's only a slim power bad where that max torque range is hit. Unless Ford 'governs' acceleration in software, I can see some lead-foots getting themselves into trouble quickly. They probably -will-, but I'd expect them to offer some sort of switch for that, lest the Ford zealots grab their pitchforks. Let us not forget that a lot of 'Car guys' are arguably insane. When Ford considered switching the Mustang to a Front Wheel Drive Mazda design, they had to deal with death threats!
- zzzeek 5y ago
  this is my biggest concern. my dad has a tesla, and you put your foot on that thing it feels like a jet on the runway. electric motors are allowing everyday, consumer level cars that can do 0-60 faster than a Ferrari, and silently as well. it leads to doing more aggressive turns and stuff like that which you can only pull off with maximum acceleration, which means scenarios like the left turn where you're whipping out like silent lightning to beat the oncoming cars, and some kid on a bike suddenly entering the road to your left where you're going, and in the opposite way in which you are looking (at the oncoming cars to the right) is toast.
  - zzzeek 5y ago
    to all the idiot downmodders, I am not advocating against electric cars, I am advocating against their software allowing unfettered acceleration as well as the lack of audible cues to pedestrians (some hybrid cars are now adding artifical sounds for this issue).

ameister14 5y ago

>Drivers are already the leading killers of children, and more and more people are being killed while walking and cycling. I think more worrisome is the center console - pedestrian deaths had been going down for 20 years until smartphones became widespread and we've had increases every year since.

mfer 5y ago
With the introduction of smart phones and social media we've seen lots of negative effects increase. For example, teen suicide was decreasing until they were introduced and then started to increase again. Girls especially. I wish there was more discussion and acknowledgement of the dangers here.
- hrktb 5y ago
  You have a point, but I also think we should be thinking beyond smartphones and try to act on what they are used for. Not in a "guns don't kill people way", but because I think smarphone helped spread society's worse effects on girls, but they were already in a very shitty position, and we can't just get back to the status quo before the smarphones and social networks. We can of course also work on reducing sns negative impacts, but I think it will also be a bad, long and thorny way before seeing improvements.
- ccsnags 5y ago
  When I’m on a long trip with friends or family we play a game trying to spot people on their phones by how poorly they are driving. Police are extra points. You would be shocked at how many cops you see looking down at their lap while driving. I would rather drive next to people with .09 blood alcohol than someone on their phone. Social media and cell phones are very convenient, but come with major drawbacks that must be addressed. Phones, for many young people, are just mental disorders with a touch screen.
TypeCaste 5y ago
I ride a motorcycle, and it seems like 30% of the drivers I see on the road have their phones out.

bb123 5y ago

Electric vehicles often have much better safety credentials than their ICE powered counterparts for a few reasons: * All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving a lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old F150 in a moose (or child!) test. * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important requirement in road safety standards. * The electric motors are able to respond with torque far faster (in ms) than an ICE engine, so traction and stability control are more effective. Again good for things like the moose test. * Switching our road transport to electric will probably save more children, and the adults they will become, from a lifetime of lung problems and premature death from pollution than better pedestrian safety features ever will.

jschwartzi 5y ago
> * All of the weight is in the bottom of the vehicle, giving a lower centre of gravity. I'd bet this will kill the old F150 in a moose (or child!) test. The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. It's simply a test of whether the occupants will survive hitting a moose. I would wager anything that is designed to pass the moose test will kill anything that it hits that is below the moose's center of gravity. So actually the vehicle is way less safe for pedestrians than a vehicle that would fail the moose test. But if all that matters is the safety of the occupant I guess this is okay. > * The lack of engine means the entire front part of the car is a huge crumple zone. This gives designers more wriggle room for pedestrian protection too. This is an increasingly important requirement in road safety standards. The kind of "crumple zone" that enhances pedestrian and cyclist safety is more like a beer can. Again, the crumple zones in this vehicle are designed to keep the occupants safe but not designed to keep any other road user safe.
- coder543 5y ago
  > The important thing to note about the moose test is that it doesn't specify that the moose has to survive. The moose test is about safely dodging around a moose that wanders out onto the road without wrecking the vehicle. Why did you write this long comment as if you were an expert on the moose test if you don't even know what the moose test is? That's an incredibly disingenuous thing to do. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9Oo5TMiWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv9Oo5TMiWw

proc0 5y ago

So they should not sell any? What's your point?

voidfunc 5y ago

Won't somebody think of the children please?!? If you get hit by any vehicle you're going to have a bad time. This vehicle is not an exception.

woah 5y ago
You are contending that there is no difference in pedestrian fatalities between vehicles? And also that it isn’t harder to see children in an unnecessarily tall vehicle?
- jrsj 5y ago
  Is a truck an unnecessarily tall vehicle or is replacing sedans with taller hatchbacks we pretend are SUVs an unnecessarily tall vehicle? Because one is tall for a reason and the other is tall purely due to consumer preference.
  - woah 5y ago
    What reason are pickup trucks tall for, other than assuaging the drivers doubts about their own masculinity? You can get just as much construction work done with a Toyota Tacoma or even a Mercedes utility van.
    - jrsj 5y ago
      Gaming EPA fuel efficiency regulations. Making them taller/wider essentially saves the manufacturers money because those regulations aren’t very well designed.
jeffbee 5y ago
It makes a big difference where one is hit. Being hit in the head by a head-height truck grille is a lot different from being hit in the shins by a 1964 Datsun. There's also the small matter that nobody driving this truck can see anything at all for ten feet to the front.
- deleted 5y ago

bobince 5y ago

It needn't have been this tall. With the internal combustion engine out, Ford could have designed a lower, more curved, less deadly front end. Instead, they kept the high nose and used the space as a trunk. After all, injuring fewer pedestrians sells no cars. Indeed, the market prefers an enormous, deliberately threatening-looking chariot that makes you feel big and virile. Ford are behind this game in that they haven't given their truck an explicitly hostile name like “People Mulcher”.

dls2016 5y ago
Smells like a steak and seats 35! https://youtu.be/PI_Jl5WFQkA https://youtu.be/PI_Jl5WFQkA
jtdev 5y ago
Roads are made for large dangerous machines that move fast and can hurt you.
- woah 5y ago
  That’s why they should only have one lane for cars with a 25mph speed limit.
- hrktb 5y ago
  That's so sad this sarcasm basically became fact after so many decades of going the wrong way. It's also why cities are taking back whole roads from cars when they can, as it's so hard to preserve a middle ground in a lot of areas.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Roads predate cars. Cars took them over from people and far slower horses.
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    So what? Its a fact today. Nobody going back to horses.

mfer 5y ago

Trucks very much have a place in society. Farmers, construction workers, and some other areas definitely need them. The trend that they need to be an everyday vehicle for anyone is something that should be looked at. What is the psychology and intentional planning that's caused this shift? What subtle population engineering has lead to this without people realizing it?

ballenf 5y ago
Speaking personally, I've never owned a truck but began considering it during Covid. Why? The cost premium of hiring someone for home improvement jobs vs. DIY seems to have gone up. And the difficulty of finding someone qualified, reputable and with available capacity seems to have become exponentially higher. "So I guess I need a truck" is what I've recently been thinking.
- kasey_junk 5y ago
  A van is better in almost every dimension for construction. Effectively the only reason to own a pickup truck (vs some other better utility vehicle) is if you have trailer that needs it.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    Disagree. I can fit lots of oddly shaped things in the bed of a truck. Vans have walls and doors that create hard limits.
  - itsyaboi 5y ago
    When you say "construction", are you referring to something like drywall/framing/roofing or electrical/trim work? I ask because fitting a stack of OSB sheets in a van can be anywhere from challenging to impossible (depending on the type of van of course). Certain trim levels of the F150 for example, are designed with the specific requirement of being able to accommodate standard sizes of construction materials, like a 4x8 sheet of OSB.
    - 5y ago

toast0 5y ago

Fuel efficiency standards killed the small truck. In the turn of the century EV era, Ford had an electric Ranger which was built on the much smaller (at the time) Ranger platform. But you can't make an ICE small truck that meets the 200x updated CAFE standards, so the small trucks either disapeared (S10) or got bigger (toyota small trucks), or got bigger then disappeared and later reappeared still big (Ranger). An EV truck presumably can be any size, but there's no current small truck platform to build on.

a2tech 5y ago
I have a few friends that are engineers in the auto companies. Its kind of amazing how many negative impacts the CAFE standards had--not on purpose (hopefully), but through unintended consequences. Apparently the Nissan Leaf for example was strictly manufactured to generate credits/offset the environmental impact of the Nissan truck and van line that could not be adjusted to meet the CAFE standards. My dad had a Ranger in 97 that was just about the perfect truck for day-to-day use. It fit 2 adults comfortably, had a tiny 4 cylinder engine, got great gas milage, and could be used to pull a small trailer. He was crushed when Ford got rid of the Ranger. And what they've released now is basically the size of the old F-150 from the 90s
- Drunk_Engineer 5y ago
  The "negative" impacts of CAFE standards were entirely by design. They were written that way to benefit the domestic auto industry, which is very uncompetitive in the small and midsized vehicle segments. By making smaller vehicles uncompetitive (or simply unavailable), it eliminated some serious competition.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    I think a lot of people don't realize how many regulations are designed by incumbent domestic companies explicitly for the purposes of making foreign companies and upstarts noncompetitive. You're right that CAFE is literally designed to favor trucks. And the definition is so vague that even vehicles like the PT Cruiser are considered Light Trucks for the purposes of CAFE. It is also designed to hurt small cars, because vehicles with footprints (wheelbase * wheel wide) smaller than a Mustang (literally, to the square inch) have to face ever-more-strict CAFE standards. As a result, cars like the Fit are might face a CAFE penalty while a base F150 does a-okay despite getting like half the fuel economy. And that's not even getting into BS like flex fuel credits (basically, being flex fuel capable is like adding ~5mpg to the vehicle CAFE score). This is exactly why every small vehicle is a crossover anymore (they are light trucks for CAFE purposes), and why cars like the Civic get are today, the size an Accord was in 2005 (CAFE is less strict the larger the vehicle is).

lastofthemojito 5y ago

Now the interesting thing will what fraction of F-150 sales will be electric and how that fraction changes over the next several years.

woeirua 5y ago

Yes, it will be heavier, and yes it will have more acceleration... But newer vehicles also have AEB with pedestrian detection. If these vehicles displace older existing vehicles without those safety systems we will see fewer fatalities overall. Most kids and pedestrians are hit at low speed, not at 60+ mph due to the driver not paying attention or not being able to see the pedestrian. While AEB can’t save all pedestrians that would otherwise be hit, we know that these systems lead to big reductions in preventable accidents [1]. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31381447/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31381447/

chrisBob 5y ago

The problem with trucks like the F-150 is all marketing. My impression after seeing a recent F-150 is that the goal is to feel big and luxurious. Even on the ICE version of the truck, the area under the hood is mostly empty. The reason an entire car hide in front of the bumper, out of the driver's view is that it makes the truck look cooler. The window sills are also at a silly height, to make the truck feel bigger, but at least that doesn't create the same safety issues (for everyone outside the truck) with no real value.

brandonmenc 5y ago

Motorcycles and busses are more dangerous for pedestrians than trucks. "Compared with cars, buses were 11.85 times and motorcycles were 3.77 times more likely per mile to kill children 0–14 years old. Buses were 16.70 times more likely to kill adults age 85 or older than were cars." https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232

Dah00n 5y ago
A truck in this discussion is a car, not a real truck. A bus is not comparable to a car. Compare a bus to a real truck. A motorcycle will in every single statistics drive faster on average than a car. I'm not saying your point is wrong but it is at a minimum like a click bait title.
- brandonmenc 5y ago
  "Passenger cars and light trucks (vans, pickups, and sport utility vehicles) accounted for 46.1% and 39.1%, respectively, of the 4875 deaths, with the remainder split among motorcycles, buses, and heavy trucks." If you count crossovers as cars, trucks make up like 35% of auto sales and account for 39% of pedestrian deaths. There is nothing to be concerned about. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-demand-by-vehicle-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276506/change-in-us-car-...
analog31 5y ago
That's probably because buses have more interaction with pedestrians, both due to people getting in and out, but also, operation in urban areas where there's a lot of pedestrian traffic.

Der_Einzige 5y ago

Automatic breaking systems are getting even better and have been pretty good for awhile. You can expect preventable fatalities of pedestrians and other drivers from cars and trucks to decline as this technology becomes better.

Unklejoe 5y ago

I feel like this same criticism should apply for the Model S Plaid then too since it accelerates faster than almost every car and is heavier than most cars as well. I’m not sure how much the weight really matters if you’re colliding with a cyclist or pedestrian anyway though. Valid point about the height, but it’s no different than any other modern truck on the road today (all of which are too high if you ask me).

peter422 5y ago

I’m very passionate about pedestrian deaths in cities (SF specifically), but based on all the incidents I can remember I don’t think pickup trucks are causing a disproportionate number. Pedestrian deaths are mostly caused by normal cars going at high speeds through red lights or crosswalks. A truck sold with automatic braking would likely be much safer than a car from the past in terms of pedestrian safety.

Drunk_Engineer 5y ago
SF just has fewer trucks, which is why you probably don't recall too many incidents. Nationwide, increasing number of SUV/trucks is a major problem in ped safety.