Reality is that patent is almost certainly not vehicle model specific.  It’s likely generic.  We shouldn’t assume it’s meant only for new BEV truck just because truck looks different on drawings.  Again, I haven’t read patent but seriously doubt it applies solely to CE1 pickup.  Ford may not even use this design at all, but who knows, could just as easily use it on existing models in the future.  Granted, it’s probably limited to unitized designs since body-on-frame may be next to impossible to make work.   Also, the midgate/bulkhead design doesn’t have to roll out in first model year.  If it’s an option then Ford could concentrate on building simpler and cheaper trucks initially and then expand offerings in a few years.  On the other hand Ford could use design on CE1 as standard from onset but that would compound risks significantly IMO.  Just saying we shouldn’t read too much into a patent application.

Huh?  Transit and F150/250/350/450/550 are much bigger in commercial sales.

I get where you're coming from, this is a relatively expensive and complex thing to include in a vehicle that's meant to be all about low cost and simplicity. But a thought occured to me, no doubt Ford is targeting both commerical and retail buyers with this vehicle. A lot of those commerical buyers and some retail buyers really want that additional bed storage, to the point of asking for 2 door, long bed trucks.    But by offering a design like this, Ford could create something that offers both the benefits of 4 door crew cabs, and long bed 2 door trucks. Something that allows you to carry people in the backseat for when you want, and significantly improving cargo space when you need to, all in one vehicle, the best of both worlds.    That could pay dividends in the future. Instead of needing to produce a 2 and 4 door cab, with carrying wheelbases and bed lengths, you just make one configuration, like the maverick has now. Saving a lot of money with reduced tooling, manufacturing, and engineering costs, while also creating a more flexible product that's better for the consumer.

Agreed, if this thing has a shorter hood/longer bed than a maverick, let's assume the bed is 5 ft compared to the mavs 4.5 ft. With this pass through, you're probably looking at 6-8 ft of total storage space, in something with a similar footprint to the maverick. 

I think the issue-at least from my perspective is class 6 and 7.  The class 8 ship has sailed in 1998.   They may be a generic truck, but they compliment the rest of the Ford line below as well as the dealer network.  And truly the "commercial market" is a class 6 and 7 market.  If not look at the class 8 manufacturers that have spent money to enter it!  What do they see that Ford does Not.

Going by that teaser photo, I'm guessing its a new grill and bumper to make it look more like a Ram vs a Jeep...

Thinking that this is aimed at the likes of Maverick buyers, people who don’t need BOF  like Ranger and more usable space in back for people who want more than a Utility.   The thing Ford must not do is over hype this and retry to be all things to all buyers. Its a great package but don’t spoil it by giving buyers false /misleading impressions.

I think we can know. Colorado and ranger don’t even offer a longer option. Frontier and Tacoma do, but I’d guess their sales are so low that no one would even notice. The most popular f150 comes with the shortest bed.   Now with that said, long bed trucks look ridiculous IMO and they can be harder to maneuver. This mid gate solves those problems so that’s a plus. However, I think ford should keep these new EVs as simple as possible for a few reasons: 1. Lower price will attract more customers 2. Ford has a problem with quality and recalls so the less places for failure, the better. 3. If these EVs are being built on some new assembly line, then I would think you’d want to make it as simple as possible to ensure everything runs smoothly.  

What I really like about the patent drawings above is that it shows the entire midgate effectively being relocated (at least in function) to the B pillar.  Functionally this means truck can be used like a single cab with very long bed.  Unlike Chevy’s design, the partition should provide much better air conditioning, heat, and a level of security for passengers and personal belongings.  Should help a lot with noise and weather protection also.  Much depends on how well the new bulkhead at B pillar is sealed.   Below are pictures of Chevy with it open just at bottom and also with the entire rear wall/gate folded flat; which adds just over 3-feet of length according to video.  As can be seen the driver and passenger are exposed to cargo area and there’s minimal protection between cabin and cargo in bed, or from weather.  I haven’t seen the patent but expect that if executed well the Ford design will have a lot of fans, including me. 😀         P.S. — IMO Maverick’s bed length’s affect on sales is an unknowable variable that can be assumed or estimated, but unless buyers previously had a choice, we don’t know how great sales could have been.  Granted market research can sometimes predict preferences but other times they are completely wrong because what people say and what they actually end up buying may be very different.  I’m no expert on this subject but know that my 6-ft Ranger bed was often a little short for my needs.  Much less than 6-feet and I would not have purchased my Ranger years ago.  I know 4~5 foot bed lengths work for many, but what we can’t know is how many additional truck buyers a 6-foot-plus bed may attract even if required once in a blue moon. 🌖   

It still gets back to the same old problem, besides a body and chassis rails, everything else really has to be industry standard equipment that Ford would have to buy in and add mark up on.   By the time Ford does that, they are simply supplying a “me too” generic truck that competes with all the other established truck brands…..where’s the compelling business case for that besides a few avid heavy truck fans wanting Ford to spend the money and find out?   Sorry if this sounds ill informed but I think it’s how Ford sees class 8 in a nutshell and they don’t like their odds of success when they can look elsewhere and get an easier return on on the same investment funding.