What's Behind Ford's $30,000 Truck Controversy?

Ford released a stylish, professionally made video highlighting how it is offering a "bounty" for removing certain elements to reduce weight and enhance the aerodynamics of its $30,000 electric truck. It's the "the best part is no part" approach, which includes ideas as straightforward as using the small motor that adjusts the mirror to also pull the mirrors in when you park, or as intricate as substituting hundreds of fasteners and components with a single "unicast" (I guess)gigacasting isn't the trendy term anymore). There's a lot of predictable, "Tesla or Rivian did it first" commentary regarding developments like zonal architecture, and that's fine. Ford is learning from those who came before. But there's also an image here that keeps coming to mind, and I find it fascinating.

If you somehow overlooked it, Ford has decided to largely abandon its major electric vehicle initiatives and instead focus on a "skunkworks" project for a Universal Electric Vehicle (UEV) platform that could underpin several different models. This is Ford, so thefirst automobile will be a truck, considering that Ford only produces one single car, and that vehicle somewhat requires a V8. With the end of the Escape, Ford also needs something reasonably priced, andthat indicates a $30,000 electric vehicle truck. It will feature an LFP battery, a more affordable battery technology compared to what is commonly used in most vehicles, meaning the company needs to put in a bit more effort to achieve the same driving range.

And they will work. Here's how Ford itself explains the process:

In the past, engineers at conventional automotive firms have typically been confined to departments that correspond to the specific component or system they are responsible for. They are encouraged to promote the part they are working on while aiming to reduce its cost, usually without considering how it affects the customer's overall experience or the vehicle's performance.

For instance, the aerodynamics team prefers a lower roof to minimize air resistance; the occupant space team favors a higher roof for more headroom, while the interior design team aims to shrink the cabin size to cut costs. Typically, these teams engage in discussions until they reach a compromise, which ultimately results in a tradeoff determined by another department responsible for balancing these considerations for the customer.

Bounties alter the negotiation process, making the actual cost of a trade-off more transparent by linking it to a specific value related to range and battery expenses. Now, the aerodynamics team and the interior design team have a shared goal, and both recognize that increasing the roof height by even 1mm would result in an extra $1.30 in battery cost or a loss of 0.055 miles in range. With bounties in place, each team has a unified objective of maximizing range while reducing battery costs — directly benefiting our customers.

That's amusing, but it implies a truck that likely doesn't resemble a typical truck. Right? And this picture, which could be genuine or not, makes me curious about what that will look like:

There's a distinct divider indicating a bed, so it's likely to have one of those. I do think the bed also appears quite small, which makes me believe it probably has a midgate. Is there a flying buttress there? It's hard to tell. Jason haswritten regarding the Ford Bronco Lobo concept, which featured a notably strong flying buttress system:

Source: Ford

I'm not certain about that, but it's making me think. By the way, it's worth mentioning that our own Adrian Clarke provided us with apreview of how it could appear, based on Ford's current design style and some other hints:

Adrian Clarke/The Autopian

Here's how Adrian put it:

It's likely this new truck won't target the typical F-150 customer from the heartland, so what might it look like? I've previously discussed how fewer and simpler components can reduce the Bill of Materials (the total cost of all parts in a vehicle), but here we need to address the issue of aerodynamics. Aerodynamic efficiency is more crucial for electric vehicles, as it accounts for roughly 80% of their overall efficiency. In contrast, this figure is much lower for internal combustion engine vehicles, around 30%. Therefore, even if a truck doesn't seem like the most aerodynamic design, the reality is that aerodynamic performance is influenced by factors such as how flush the surfaces are, how well they seal, and the minimal number of openings. Another point to consider is that drag only becomes significant at speeds of approximately 40-50 mph.

I agree, although the potentially confusing aerodynamic illustration below features a more rounded and pod-shaped front than one would typically expect from a truck. Even the Maverick has a fairly flat-nosed appearance.

Source: Ford

I suppose the Santa Cruz manages to avoid a conventional truck-style front:

Photo: Hyundai

Even viewing it, it appears more like a truck than the Ford truck.couldseem. Here's a version of it from Peter:

In this iteration, which is more skillfully executed, you receive significantly more bed space, though perhaps at the cost of headroom.

Here’s the full videoif you believe there is more here that I am overlooking.

Once more, I don't have the solutions. I'm simply raising the issue. How strange is this going to appear? How bizarre can Ford manage to make it look?

I’m intrigued and excited.

Thanks to zestyg in the Autopian Discord!

Top graphic image: Ford

Add To Glovebox