Yee-hah! Ford demos electric pick-up truck

Yeehaw

aslong as you fit your sisters in the front, it can do burnouts and it comes in faded red then i think it`ll have a market in america for sure =D

Excellent

This is the right direction for electric to be going in, getting equivalent power first, then working on storage and longevity. Starting at the other end like the godawful g-whizz-a-likes is just turning the majority of consumers off.

This Ford, however, maybe take it a bit far (though i know it's just a 'look what we can do' model). How about 200bhp, in a smaller car, with greater range. Then you're hitting the right market.

Much as I'm not a fan

of pick-ups, big American trucks or the chances of "demo" vehicles being made commercially,

THIS FREAKING ROCKS! I can honestly say that I'm very impressed.

Now that yanks have to make a version that'll take corners...

It's the checked one with the gun rack on it with a gun rack on it.

Ford is as usually full of it

Electric in-wheel motors have been a standard feature on mining supertrucks like the 80ton+ BelAz or Cat for decades. A 320 ton mining monster does not look as small or underpowered and the financial results of Cat are definitely better than what Ford has been showing...

40kWh battery

Mmm, 400bhp is 300kW, approx. (1hp = 746 watts) I reckon that on full power, that 40kWh battery will last about 8 minutes. It must go bloody fast if it covers 150 miles in that time.

Perhaps someone smarter than me can point out where I put the decimal point in the wrong place, because I'm sure Ford marketing wouldn't exagerate.

40Kw = 400bhp

Yes, clearly something not quite right with those numbers. We will seek clarification on the precise size and capacity of the F150's battery pack and update the story asap.

This is what comes of filing stories after having been up all night watching the US election results come in!

Suggestion

Make it a diesel-electric (like a locomotive, or the above-mentioned mining trucks), using the battery as a buffer, and retain the ability to plug it in. Drop the HP to around 250 so the battery lasts longer. (the instant-on torque of the electric motors will more than make up for the reduction in HP, especially when towing) Add some aerodynamics (like Dodge did with the new RAM), and I think we have a winner.

Details details

Looks like people are thirsting for the actual facts here.

The in wheel motors can provide 400+ bhp. This is mostly used for braking. You would need super capacitors to provide this for acceleration and will probably be needed to store the power generated from braking.

The generator is not part of the battery pack but is part of the in wheel motors which are pretty fancy bits of kit if you check the details: http://www.hipadrive.com/oursystem.html . For the Volvo Recharge traditional breaks were also used but PML Flightlink describe them as unnecessary.

I'd like a magnifying glass for detail but the scientist will have to do!!!

Battery

That should have read 40kWh rather than 40kw. Apologies for any confusion.

The range is pathetic...

... so they need an engine-powering-a-generator, but other than that, this vehicle rocks! I love the independant wheel drive, and the efficiancy of illiminating the drive train. This illiminates a ton of complexity from the automobile, which should drive the cost down (if not for that stupid battery pack), and TCO as well! I often wondered why Toyota made the Prius "battery assist" to the conventional drive train, effectively making the whole drive train *more* complex, especially with the regenerative breaking.

Anyway, it seems like this is the way forward for all automobiles. Batteries are a crappy storage mechanism, but the advantage to this electric-drive concept is that you should be able to drop in a generator, or fuel cell, or nuclear battery if you wanted, and leave the rest of the car completely intact!

I'll be waiting

For these to hit the road in the nothern US where they have been using calcium chloride on the roads in recent years in addition to the usual sodium chloride. Give them a year or two for the rust and decay to set in and see where all that leccy stuff fits up. Er, mate, your motors are all rusted up and the regenerative circuits are all rotted out and you best just buy a new truck.

Set the wayback machine to the 1970s/80s.

And set the location to be Birmingham (Sparkhill, Evelyn Road iirc).

Lucas Electric Vehicles (later Lucas Chloride) took a small quantity of production Bedford CF vans and made them electric. Same with a few Leyland Sherpa vans. Pre-Internerd so writeups are hard to find, but there are a few.

A little while after that, Ford and GE used the Lucas battery and drivetrain technology in a modified Mercury LN7. Nice to see Ford getting back round to it again shortly before they go bust.

Sadly, twenty years on from the LN7, UK plc mostly don't do that kind of engineering/tech thing now. We're second in command of the world's financial services business, don'tcha know, and courtesy of these masters of the universe, engineering in general and Lucas in particular no longer exists in this country.

Thanks Gordon and George, we love you too. May you burn in Hell forever.

Yes, at full power a 400bhp vehicle does go fast

I'm not sure why some of you folk think the full power of a vehicle has to be used for a quick jaunt to the corner store. Highway speeds in a car use about 5 to 75 horsepower depending on the weight of the vehicle and the incline of the road. The ability to get to that speed in a reasonable time with some cargo is why vehicles use more. Don't expect to get the rated range and efficiency of any vehicle if you put it on a drag strip and race it flat-out all the time.

@Peter

1: "Lots of people showing their poor eductation levels in the sciences."

It's a common problem, sadly, sometimes even among those who think they have a clue, and even in folks who may be experts in their usual field of competence.

2: "These motors can recover 85% of the energy used in acceleration,"

Highly unlikely. Lots of energy is lost unrecoverably, to drag, rolling resistance of tyres, friction, air resistance, etc (add your favourite). Otherwise once a vehicle got to (say) 30mph on a level road it would stay there for ages and need no more energy input. Real life's not like that. And that's before we look at the (in)efficiency of each energy conversion in the trip from energy going into the battery all the way to kinetic energy of the vehicle.

3: "when stopping or going down hill, with fast charge batteries most of it is recovered"

Some of the available kinetic energy can be turned back into electrical energy, then into chemical energy in the battery, then into electricity again for accelerating again (each conversion being somewhat lossy). The available kinetic energy when braking will generally be lots less than the total electrical energy put into accelerating the vehicle. Downhill slopes are an apparent exception, but in general downhill slopes are accompanied with an equal and opposite uphill slope which needs *more* energy to ascend than can be recovered in the descent. That's thermodynamics for you.

There's another important thing about hills (and multi storey car parks), and that's how you get up them (especially from a 0mph start!). The speed at which you can climb slopes is limited by the available power at the wheels - for a given power, the steeper the slope, the slower the climb. Power at your wheels in turn is limited by the available energy sources - battery and engine. On a non-trivial climb the continuous (as distinct from burst) power ratings of every element in the supply chain will also hit limits which they don't in a 0-60 dash on the level. Ever been stuck behind an electric milkfloat going (very slowly) up a hill, even though on the flat it would happily do 25mph?

4: "an IC vehicle can throws >up to< 30% of the energy away as heat in the brakes. "

Note "up to". 1% can be "up to". Anyway, in short bursts, maybe it comes towards 30%. Not on a sustained basis and/or when driven sensibly. Actually, when stopping a traditional vehicle, pretty much 100% of the kinetic energy before the brakes are applied has (by definition) to end up as heat in the brakes, so picking 30% is a bit weird. Sadly, by the time the brakes go on, a lot of energy has already been lost irrecoverably (see [3]).

5: "Note accelerating a vehicle to say 60mph in 5 seconds or 5 minutes takes the same amount of energy only the peek power requirement changes."

More peak power gets you to 60mph quicker, but the "total energy input is the same" is only true if you again can ignore the unrecoverable losses mentioned in [3].

6: "no drive shafts, brake calipers, brake rotors <...>"

How does the "parking brake" work? Does "unsprung weight" mean anything in your world? Surely the extra mass in the wheels (vs ordinary wheels) needs more substantial (heavier) structures to connect it (and keep it connected) to the chassis/body.

The concept is indeed lovely, but at least in places where there may be techies reading, please stick to facts and leave out most of the hype.

Sample fact: as various folks including yourself have said, traditional vehicle engines have to be sized to provide the peak power demand needed for reasonable acceleration whereas a battery plus regenerative-electric-motor plus diesel/petrol hybrid combo potentially has different rules (as the Lucas Aerospace Shop Stewards Combine were pointing out back in the late 1970s, though no one was listening).

"PML are designers and manufacturers of electic motors, joysticks and drive systems."

"Reliabile controllers offering precise, smooth control"

Speeling mistakes and tryping errors in your post here are one thing, but on your corporate website they don't look good (what are spell checkers and proof readers for?).

Wannabe BSc Wankers

Any of you ever picked up a conventional F150 axle/brake end ASM? Especially front 4WD? We won't mention a real truck like an F350/F450/F550...

Braking would not be just regenerative (how quaint!) but active, i.e., running the wheel torque in reverse. Yes, it uses more energy but avoids that messy part at the end just like old fashioned centuries old carbon spewing waste heat brake systems.

Sure, a Mini would get more humans from A to B more efficiently (I want the metallic flake copper coloured AWD version!) but that pikey doesn't hunt if you need to haul anything significant, or need an American Chick Magnet.

Eletric Bike?

"The aerodynamics of a barn door". Priceless, I spewed my coffee on that one; can´t compare to Tesla roadster...

"Weight makes little difference(...)" It DOES make difference, in the real world, where you have losses of all kinds, as others beautifully commented. Weight won´t make a difference only on the Maglev, mind you. Wait, it DOES, it presumably must spend more energy to make it float, er, hover, er, whatever you name it. More weight means more juice to push it around, period. Inertia sucks (juice).

On another hand, why not eletric motorcycles? Surely, the batteries can be shaped in the monocoque, while the room left for a 1000cc IC engine would fit a 'leccy kit, and more room for batteries, heh? 150bhp wouldn´t be strange on a bike, but I don´t know how much it would weight. If the kit is a bit bigger, a 2000cc Harley Davidson would fit it better then?

Just don´t let Sony make the batteries, or your car/bike might melt and burn or blow up.

Mine is the one with the 13,8kV / 1200A battery charger and a 22400Ah submarine battery strapped in the back.

@Wannabe BSc Winkers

"Braking would not be just regenerative (how quaint!) but active, i.e., running the wheel torque in reverse. " <etc>

Wtf r u on abt? U seen 2 mch Clarkson?

Basic school physics (sounds like you failed either physics or english): you can in principle convert the car's kinetic energy back into chemical energy in the battery but in real life there will be losses along the way, same as there were when the energy was converted from chemical energy to kinetic energy. Therefore whatever energy goes back into the battery from braking WILL be less (typically a lot less) than came out of it for acceleration. If this wasn't the case, perpetual motion would have put the oil companies out of business long ago (oh yeah, I remember, they're suppressing it, like they're suppressing the water-powered cars).

Get a clue, or STFU.

@ac - sony batteries

Just don´t let Sony make the batteries, or your car/bike might melt and burn or blow up.

Yeah, then your crotch rocket will turn into a firecrotch.

Paris, because....

Unspring weight

Granted on the unsprung weight.... and the emergency braking. I already assumed this thing had conventional brakes as well, as sometimes stopping might need to be carried out a little more quickly than regenerative braking would allow.

In regards to unsprung weight, how about putting the motors on the frame right next to the wheels, then attach them with conventional CV joints? That is a little more complexity and a little more weight, but still less than in a conventional auto.

Finally, it is pushing it, but I could see a wheel assembly on a truck like this weighing 30kg. Maybe not on your typical Mini, but on a Ford F-250? Yeah, I could see that.