Jump to content

The CEO of Ford says he's been driving a Xiaomi EV for the past 6 months and doesn't want to give it up


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Biker16 said:

This is really interesting. 

It confirms that the existing OEM Model of delegating to suppliers is biting them in the ass, during the EV transition. 

Basically confirms that Vertical integration is a necessity for Future product Development

This video on lucid's development philosophy lays out the difference between New companies and the legacy Automakers

The things that I found scarey in Farley’s admissions were:

1. Ford tolerates engineering design that permits up to 150 control modules in its vehicles
2. To save about $500/vehicle, Ford auctioned out the supply of those 150 modules to suppliers 

3. Ford did nothing to ensure that all those modules could talk to each other

4. Ford doesn’t own the IP in those modules and has to get permission from the supplier to change things.

 

No wonder Ford is just so hamstrung with changes that people think should be easy to do and yes,

I agree that’s probably what Farley created a new team to get away from entrenched design rules

that are crippling innovation and stopping Ford from being nimble and quick to market.

 

CE1 is a breath of fresh air that is getting thrown in the face of Ford corporate engineering and now,

big questions are being asked about Ford’s engineering design processes used in all other vehicles.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Biker16 said:

This is really interesting. 

It confirms that the existing OEM Model of delegating to suppliers is biting them in the ass, during the EV transition. 

Basically confirms that Vertical integration is a necessity for Future product Development

This video on lucid's development philosophy lays out the difference between New companies and the legacy Automakers.

 


Also very important is that Lucid appear view vehicle overall energy efficiency as far more important than Ford, GM, or Stellantis; perhaps more like Tesla.  He mentioned how aerodynamics is most important, and explains how energy efficiency also affects driving range, electrical power grid, effective charging speed, and so on; not just initial vehicle cost.  I sometimes forget that average non-technical people may not be seeing the big picture at all, but rather pieces that don’t fit together from their perspective.

 

The Lucid Air Pure at 5 miles per kWh is quite an accomplishment, yet he said in video they are not satisfied with that.  They want ever-increasing efficiency, as it should be for all manufacturers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Impressive, but that was obviously a race prepped car and can't be fairly compared to a street legal car.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/xiaomi-chief-touts-nurburgring-record-ahead-ev-launch-2024-10-29/

 

Quote
Xiaomi said the production version of the SU7 Ultra would feature carbon-fiber components, including its roof, performance ceramic brakes and an aerodynamic styling. The company had unveiled a prototype in July.
 
Ahead of Tuesday's event, Lei said the SU7 Ultra prototype had set a record lap time at Germany's grueling Nurburgring track.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The things that I found scarey in Farley’s admissions were:

1. Ford tolerates engineering design that permits up to 150 control modules in its vehicles
2. To save about $500/vehicle, Ford auctioned out the supply of those 150 modules to suppliers 

3. Ford did nothing to ensure that all those modules could talk to each other

4. Ford doesn’t own the IP in those modules and has to get permission from the supplier to change things.

 

No wonder Ford is just so hamstrung with changes that people think should be easy to do and yes,

I agree that’s probably what Farley created a new team to get away from entrenched design rules

that are crippling innovation and stopping Ford from being nimble and quick to market.

 

CE1 is a breath of fresh air that is getting thrown in the face of Ford corporate engineering and now,

big questions are being asked about Ford’s engineering design processes used in all other vehicles.

 

 I can imagine some Mid-level VP person getting a massive promotion and bonus due to the "savings" from this decision. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Biker16 said:

 I can imagine some Mid-level VP person getting a massive promotion and bonus due to the "savings" from this decision. 

In fairness, it’s what Ford has done for decades, make their teams find every possible saving.

In their corporate mind, it is better to take the $500/vehicle saving now and deal with any

consequences if or when they occur. This  instance instance shows an underlying

Complexity and vulnerability that has crept into the design, they would have swept

it away under some glib idea of “managing change” that get all those VPs sporting wood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...