No, Ford's Electric F-150 Can't Tow 1 Million Pounds (Realistically)

Ford's Electric F-150 pulled a 1 million pound train, but Ford's stunt was way easier than it looked. This isn't a competitive advantage, instead, it's a very clever, very cool, marketing exercise.

Towing a million pounds sounds impossible. On an open road, it pretty much is. On a railroad, however, things are different. With a steel wheel riding on a steel track, the rolling resistance of the train is extremely low. The result? A relatively tiny force is required to move the train in comparison to the weight of the train.

What makes it easy? Well it all comes down to the coefficient of rolling resistance. This is the ratio of force required to pull a certain rotational mass. For example, a coefficient of rolling resistance of 0.1 means you only need a 1 pound-force to move a 10 pound ball. With steel wheels on a steel track, that ratio is far, far lower. Plenty of trucks out there could have done the same thing Ford's electric F-150 did, if not family crossovers and SUVs. Check out the video for a full breakdown of how it all works.

Important Note: This video was filmed prior to my article being published in Road & Track (link below). Upon release of the article, Ford reached out with clarification. Here is additional information with regards to the power required for accelerating the 1.25 million pound train:
1. We want to know how much power it takes to move 1.25 million pounds at a speed of 4.5 mph in just 1,000 ft.
2. We’re going to assume the truck is accelerating for those entire 1,000 ft, and reaches 4.5 mph right when it crosses the 1,000 ft. line.
3. Power = Work / Time. If we calculate work & time, we determine power.
4. Time can be calculated based on average speed over 1,000 ft. Top speed 4.5 mph, starting at 0 mph. Average 2.25 mph. 2.25 mph = 3.3 ft/s. 1000 ft / 3.3 ft/s = 303 seconds (5 minutes, 3 seconds, to go from 0 to 4.5 mph). T = 303 sec.
5. Work = change in kinetic energy. We start at 0, so kinetic energy is zero. All we need to know is final kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is equal to one-half mass times velocity squared (k=0.5mv^2). 12.5M lb = 566,990 kg. 4.5 mph = 2.01 m/s. KE = (0.5)*(566,990 kg)*(2.01168 m/s)^2 = 1,147,263.561 N-m.
6. Plug in variables to Power equation. Power = Work/Time. P = (1,147,263.561 N-m)/(303 seconds) = 3.786 kW or ~ 5 Horsepower.
7. It’s important to note that 5 HP is the power required to to accelerate this mass assuming zero losses. Heat, friction, aerodynamics, etc. There are also smaller assumptions like not accelerating any rotational masses (the train has wheels, etc). A sanity check using the same math shows a 3,300 lb car requires 240 HP to go 0-60 in 3.0 seconds. We know it’s generally double that in the real world. Even giving the truck a factor of 10 advantage, 50 HP is nothing crazy.
8. The train is very heavy, this is the impressive part. Unfortunately, the duration is very long (5 minutes), and the speed is very low (5 mph). Both time and speed variables work heavily against the power required. If the train were to accelerate to 60 mph in the same 1,000 ft distance, it would take 12,000 HP without losses. Quite a difference, just from changing speed!

Road & Track article covering the stunt:

Engineering Explained is a participant in the Amazon Influencer Program.

Don't forget to check out my other pages below!

NEW VIDEO EVERY WEDNESDAY!

[EngineeringExplained]

**IMPORTANT NOTE** This video was filmed prior to my article being published in Road & Track (link below). Upon release of the article, Ford reached out with additional information. They said the truck was traveling at 4.5 mph when it crossed 1, 000 ft. From this, we can calculate power required:
1. We want to know how much power it takes to move 1.25 million pounds at a speed of 4.5 mph in just 1, 000 ft.
2. We’re going to assume the truck is accelerating for those entire 1, 000 ft, and reaches 4.5 mph right when it crosses the 1, 000 ft. line.
3. Power = Work / Time. If we calculate work & time, we determine power.
4. Time can be calculated based on average speed over 1, 000 ft. Top speed 4.5 mph, starting at 0 mph. Average 2.25 mph. 2.25 mph = 3.3 ft/s. 1000 ft / 3.3 ft/s = 303 seconds (5 minutes, 3 seconds, to go from 0 to 4.5 mph). T = 303 sec.
5. Work = change in kinetic energy. We start at 0, so kinetic energy is zero. All we need to know is final kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is equal to one-half mass times velocity squared (k=0.5mv^2). 12.5M lb = 566, 990 kg. 4.5 mph = 2.01 m/s. KE = (0.5)*(566, 990 kg)*(2.01168 m/s)^2 = 1, 147, 263.561 N-m.
6. Plug in variables to Power equation. Power = Work/Time. P = (1, 147, 263.561 N-m)/(303 seconds) = 3.786 kW or ~ 5 Horsepower.
7. It’s important to note that 5 HP is the power required to to accelerate this mass assuming zero losses. Heat, friction, aerodynamics, etc. There are also smaller assumptions like not accelerating any rotational masses (the train has wheels, etc). A sanity check using the same math shows a 3, 300 lb car requires 240 HP to go 0-60 in 3.0 seconds. We know it’s generally double that in the real world. Even giving the truck a factor of 10 advantage, 50 HP is nothing crazy.
8. The train is very heavy, this is the impressive part. Unfortunately, the duration is very long (5 minutes), and the speed is very low (5 mph). Both time and speed variables work heavily against the power required. If the train were to accelerate to 60 mph in the same 1, 000 ft distance, it would take 12, 000 HP without losses. Quite a difference, just from changing speed!

Road & Track article covering the stunt:

[axel_x]

and that's why trains are a real efficient way to transport very heavy loads

[GearheadDaily]

Wait... you're saying marketing is misleading!?

[a.ffirmative]

A company: *Has a advertising idea*

Engineering Explained: No

[mikebarnacle]

The tow-strap is honestly what gives it away. They should have used a monster steel bridge cable on it to make it seem like that's what you need to handle the force involved.

[haydenwhite]

I'm more impressed by the fact that he successfully said "railroad wheels on steel railroad rails."

[MRrailaway]

shouldnt that strap be a dead give away on the force needed to tow the train :P

[wickedleeloopy]

If a strongman can pull a jumbo jet with his teeth, this is actually not that impressive.

[austinlego]

And that’s why ford refuses to sell this guy a vehicle. 😂

[roenne]

Nice explanation and all, but my primary interest is finding out what happened to that Tesla card?!

[shawnseeley]

I'm a freight conductor and this stunt of Fords reminds me of a story I was told many years ago about a switchman back in the late 70's or early 80's. Apparently this guy had purchased a Chevy Blazer and wanted to pull a few loaded sand cars (about 120 tons each) by hooking up a tow strap and pulling from a slight angle along the switching lead to show how tough his new ride was. As you can imagine, he didn't have much trouble getting the cars to start moving, but had failed to come up with a plan to brake and get them to stop. When he tried to slow down, the cars kept rolling and his Blazer became the towed vehicle until it was pulled into the side of the cars and badly damaged. I'm not quite sure how this was explained to local management, but like so many other things, railroading was a much different bussiness back then 😂

[BiZZuRKS]

Did I miss the part where he explained the magic trick? Seriously, where the card under the play button go?

[Tman]

I cant wait for the chevy version "real trains not actors"
*Thomas the tank engine gets "pulled" by a Silverado*

[japhethbonnema]

i mean jeremy clarkson pulled a 13000 tonne ship with a Citroen c3 (28.6 million pounds)

[Plate_Productions]

let me summarize:

it pulled it because it was on wheels which were on a rail.
wheels roll
so it's easier

this is the same reason you can push a car with some friends but not a 1, 500 kilogram object

[trailblazer]

Wait until Tesla's Cybertruck tows Earth to Andromeda galaxy.

[VinnyMartello]

The huge advantage is steel wheels on steel rails is super super super efficient. Practically no friction. That's why trains do so well. A human being can move a single box car on a flat surface if he's in really good shape.

[deleriumk]

Whoa, never occurred to me that the efficiency of trains comes from the hardness of steel. Simple and profound

[sumant]

*Ford comes up with a brilliant marketing idea*
Jason : Uploads this
Ford : Ah sh*t, here we go again

[CrazyPetez]

Excellent video. I’m not a math guy, but I can follow you as you work your way through the steps. Thank you!