sparky1337

I think they overestimated their market. I think the Lightning was the perfect truck to spearhead the EV transition. It looks, drives, and feels like a normal (yet powerful) truck. Being the highest volume seller, electrifying the F150 made sense on paper.

But that’s where it really stops.

The kind of person that buys a 4x4 F150, is not the same demographic that wants to be seen in an EV. As childish as the mentality sounds, that’s the demographic.

Where they sell 70,000 F-series (150 through 550 I think super duty’s included until dump beds), they only sold ~1,500-2,000 lightnings a month. Which honestly isn’t that bad for such a niche product.

I think the move to give it a plug in hybrid style powertrain will help sales as our travel charging infrastructure is still garbage. But try and tell people that they can just charge at home with an L2 and they freak out. It’s also frustrating that most people who are against EV’s just don’t understand technology in general.

In contrast, Ford sells about 15,000 mavericks a month. More when it was newer, same with the Lightning.

I do agree with your points and that Ford isn’t happy, and they could have handled the whole situation a little better.

Don’t forget about insurance and property tax. The monthly payment isn’t all you have to spend.

Registration fees too.

I had never paid much attention to Kimmel, (or any late night host personality) but sure I’ll watch Kimmel now.

Doesn’t seem like that would be effective on something like the interstate highways. I’d imagine actually fining people would work.

An area close to where I live turned on speeding cameras for a work zone that’s been notorious for speeders. They clocked 38,000+ tickets in the first week.

One of them was for 106 in a 60 mph zone. I haven’t kept up with it since they turned it on but it was desperately needed.

Disclosure: I’m not any expert on road safety or driver psychology. Just someone that used to drive 50k+ miles a year and saw a lot of what I thought were trends.

Well, honestly they’re not really good for anything. Most manufacturers use a bake type method, which is not in anyway comparable to a house engulfed in actual flames.

As a general consumer, this is about the best you can do. Put whatever in a “fireproof” bag inside a “fireproof” safe and you might save your data in the event of a fire.

It’s the same thing about gun “safes”. They’re not really safes unless you spend big money. Like $10,000+. Otherwise they’re categorized as “residential containers”.

I should have clarified whether or not my answer was in response to “is it possible” instead of “is it recommended”.

I think they mean if you’re using removable media that is easily portable then the answer to your question about fire proofing is doable.

You can store them in a fire safe when not actively backing up or need constant access.

I will admit, it certainly comes across like that. But it was more an illustration of how America works. This entire event is some crazy satire political cartoon that manifested itself.

The 76 year old driving an S.U.V. faced no charges.

If you go for the 2” thick filters they breathe better and have more surface area.

When I worked in foodservice, we bought it by the gallon. People would ask for it as a dressing on their salads. Gross.

Typical South Eastern US.

It used to be easy to build a PC that was double the performance of a console for the same price. And it was even easier if you sourced slightly used current hardware. Now you’re lucky to get last gen hardware for a decent price used. The market is garbage.

Back in 2014 you could get brand new motherboards for ~$50, where it’s difficult to find any under $150 that provide decent features. I think the most expensive thing at the time was NAND due to flooded factories but everything else was super cheap.

It was removable, but used Dells weird connection. I just had to solder the connections of the new battery on instead of paying Dell $20 for a watch battery haha.