Why the low ground clearance for Lightning?

[TheCarthaginian]

I was excited to see this week's news about all the cool features the lightning will have. I've been looking into buying a Rivian or Cybertruck, but like a few things about the Lightning more. But the crappy ground clearance will probably be a deal breaker for me, since I like to offroad. Why is it that Cybertruck has 16", Rivian 14.5", and somehow the Lightning has a paltry 8.9"? That's even less than a regular F-150. Really bummed about this, guys.

Sponsored

 

[superds]

Range. That’s why so low to the ground. If they put it up higher the 300 mile range would suffer. I’m already thinking I would take off the front air dam, put like a 1”-2” lift in and put bigger tires on if I had one.

 

[12Lariat21]

You have to put all those batteries somewhere, This typically raises the floor on a vehicle, making you either sit like your in a corvette, or making the vehicle taller. Ford has kept the Lightning looking the same as the F-150, so you lose ground clearance. Aftermarket wheels, tires and I'm sure other suspension options will give you everything you need, just need to wait for it.

 

[Vulnox]

The F-150 Lightning stats are essentially production ready, until Rivian or Tesla have a rolling production ready vehicle I would hold off on getting too hung up on stats like ground clearance. There are other variables just as important to off-roading, like breakover, approach and departure, etc. The reality is, none of those vehicles are going to be great in off-road conditions where you would challenge even 8.9" of clearance. Full size trucks just kinda suck to take in anything too technical. They are long, wide, and breakover is pretty much always terrible.

Plus they are expensive, so going into anything too challenging risks damage. So Ford made what I think is the most logical move and focused on range and on-road behavior. Those other high clearance vehicles are going to suffer in real world range at highway speeds with all that air volume underneath, and they will handle poorly compared to the lower F-150.

If you really need to off-road in significant situations, I would recommend a Ranger Tremor or a used Jeep. I know the F-150 has plenty of off-road goodies, but full size trucks are just overall worse in most off-road situations where you start worrying about ground clearance.

 

[Squatch]

The F-150 Lightning stats are essentially production ready, until Rivian or Tesla have a rolling production ready vehicle I would hold off on getting too hung up on stats like ground clearance. There are other variables just as important to off-roading, like breakover, approach and departure, etc. The reality is, none of those vehicles are going to be great in off-road conditions where you would challenge even 8.9" of clearance. Full size trucks just kinda suck to take in anything too technical. They are long, wide, and breakover is pretty much always terrible.

Plus they are expensive, so going into anything too challenging risks damage. So Ford made what I think is the most logical move and focused on range and on-road behavior. Those other high clearance vehicles are going to suffer in real world range at highway speeds with all that air volume underneath, and they will handle poorly compared to the lower F-150.

If you really need to off-road in significant situations, I would recommend a Ranger Tremor or a used Jeep. I know the F-150 has plenty of off-road goodies, but full size trucks are just overall worse in most off-road situations where you start worrying about ground clearance.

? Agree!

I love going off-road and the Motor Trend(?) article described enough off-road for light farm work and fire roads. It's not like Ford believes they made an EV Raptor.

Groceries in the frunk, building materials in the back. An EV mullet as another forum member said, lol.

 

[Larry Arizona]

You are going to be waiting awhile for the cybertruck, Tesla is way behind in development. They are still in the sourcing phase and are demanding suppliers meet 6-9 month development timing which is impossible, reality is 18-20 months is best case.

 

[drcarric2650]

You are going to be waiting awhile for the cybertruck, Tesla is way behind in development. They are still in the sourcing phase and are demanding suppliers meet 6-9 month development timing which is impossible, reality is 18-20 months is best case.

Now that's just FUD.

 

[drcarric2650]

I'm hoping in a few years that the lightning will have air shock option... along with a 500 mile version, till then I will make due with this one.

 

[ChasingCoral]

I was excited to see this week's news about all the cool features the lightning will have. I've been looking into buying a Rivian or Cybertruck, but like a few things about the Lightning more. But the crappy ground clearance will probably be a deal breaker for me, since I like to offroad. Why is it that Cybertruck has 16", Rivian 14.5", and somehow the Lightning has a paltry 8.9"? That's even less than a regular F-150. Really bummed about this, guys.

The 2021 F-150 has ground clearance of 8.2-9.4" depending on configuration. Even the SuperCrew Tremor is only 9.4". At 8.9" the Lightning is a bit taller than the middle of current models. It is 1/2" lower than the 9.4" current 4x4 and Tremor SuperCrews. If you want a monster truck you can trick it out yourself.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

Apples and Oranges. The Rivian and Tesla numbers aren't true ground clearance. Ground clearance is the measurement to the lowest point of clearance, usually the differential on most ice vehicles. That's half the wheel diameter, say 30 inches, less half the size of the diff, say 12 inches, so typically 9 inches. You can ONLY gain true clearance with a taller wheel. Nothing else gives you more clearance - not higher suspension, not a lift, nothing, because the axle stays low, or the drive unit if independent suspension, is the low point. Tesla and Rivian HAVE to be using some other spot for measurement, such as bumper breakover, but it is NOT the point where their axle or motor is located, the true bottom of the vehicle.

 

[Pedaldude]

EVs have a very high driveline efficiency. So there's not a lot that can be done to maximize the range other than overall weight, the coefficient of drag and the frontal area.

Because of a pocket of turbulent air stuck between the vehicle and the road, ground clearance is effectively added to frontal area more or less, so for every 2" of ride height that you add to an 80" wide vehicle, you are also adding over a square foot of frontal area. Aerodynamic belly pans can help but they're not as effective as lowering the vehicle. Same thing for active air dams.

ICE powered vehicles lose so much efficiency through driveline losses that being super aerodynamic won't make as much of an impact at lower speeds.

Total aerodynamic resistance is a product of the frontal area, drag coefficient and speed.

Frontal area and coefficient of drag have a direct relationship, but speed is totally different. The drag experienced increases with the square of that increase in speed. So at 90mph, you should be experiencing four times the resistance to air as at 45mph and to actually accelerate to that speed, it's the cube, so if you use 20hp to tool around at 45mph, to get to 90mph, you would need 160hp to go 90mph.

That's why frontal area was so important to classic land speed racers, they would lower their cars, chop the tops and sometimes even cut them in half lengthwise and take a few inches out to make them more narrow, since simply increasing the horsepower wasn't enough.

An active suspension would help with increasing the range on the highway as well as providing adequate ground clearance for off-road. It would add significantly to cost and complexity though and there's still plenty of low hanging fruit with the Lightning if they wanted to improve the range without adding to the battery pack.

Sponsored