Ford’s upcoming $30k electric truck reveals new details.
Sketches show an ultra-aerodynamic, wind-cheating shape.
Radical tech cuts weight, trims costs, and simplifies wiring.
Ford has lifted the lid a little further on its so-called “Universal Electric Vehicle” project, the one tasked with delivering a brand-new $30,000 electric midsize truck in 2027. The tech breakdown in the 14-minute teaser packs plenty of stuff, but it is the design sketches that really grab your attention, offering the first glimpse of what this thing might look like in the metal.
From those early drawings, which also align with the ghost images seen so far, the truck appears slippery and futuristic. Think of it as a softer, more rounded take on the larger Tesla Cybertruck, minus the origami and unpolished edges, not to mention with a far more reasonable entry price. Up front, there are slim vertical LEDs, an illuminated Ford badge, and horizontal intakes carved into the bumper.
The windshield stretches deep into the hood and flows into an integrated roof spoiler at the rear. Despite the futuristic surfacing, this is still (likely) a Ranger-sized pickup with a traditional dual-cab layout. Practicality has not been shown the door.
Ford
Low Drag Is Key
Unsurprisingly, the aerodynamics team had a heavy hand in shaping this truck, with former F1 experts brought in to chase every last fraction of efficiency. The mission was simple: slash drag hard enough that smaller batteries could deliver the required range, keeping production costs in check.
The curved roof reportedly reduces the turbulence typically created by a pickup bed. The side mirrors are 20 percent smaller than standard items, adding 1.5 miles (2.4 km) of range, while specially designed underbody panels contribute another 4.5 miles (7.2 km).
In total, Ford estimates these measures deliver 50 miles (80 km) of additional range compared to a similarly sized truck with a more conventional shape. That is not a rounding error.
Aerodynamics are only half the story. Ford has also focused heavily on reducing manufacturing complexity. The company will use large aluminum unicastings, broadly similar in principle to Tesla’s gigacasting method. Structural components drop from 146 pieces in today’s Ford Maverick to just two, and overall weight is said to be 27 percent lower than rival offerings.
Fewer parts and fewer joints mean fewer robots on the line, which Ford claims results in “measurable gains” in both build quality and production efficiency.
it also appears that Ford engineers have borrowed lessons from reverse-engineering Chinese and Tesla EVs. The new truck’s wiring is 4,000 feet (1.2 km) shorter than that of the Mustang Mach-E crossover, trimming 22 pounds (10 kg). It will run prismatic lithium iron-phosphate (LFP) battery cells and a separate 48V system for auxiliary functions.
The skunkworks team behind Ford’s next generation of EVs is led by former Tesla executive Alan Clarke, bringing 12 years of experience from the rival automaker.
As for the name, Ford is staying quiet. A recent patent filing hints at a possible return of the Ranchero badge, though nothing is confirmed. The affordable pickup is due in 2027 and will be followed by additional affordable EVs, with a sedan reportedly on the wish list.
Jony Ive admits anxiety before the Luce’s big reveal.
Ferrari’s first EV pursues a singular, radical design.
It debuts in May ahead of its planned 2028 launch.
Ferrari is no stranger to controversy, and it rarely shies away from it either. Its upcoming all-electric Luce could turn out to be the most polarizing project yet. The man behind the design, Jony Ive, Apple’s former design chief who shaped the iPhone and several other era-defining products, admits he is feeling the pressure.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable response with a historic unveiling just two months away, especially when you are tasked with redefining what a Ferrari is supposed to be in the modern era.
This isn’t just another EV launch after all. It is Ferrari, a brand built on racing at the highest levels and on exciting V12 supercars, sometimes only obtainable through wild buying rituals, and now venturing into the silent world of EVs.
A Defining Electric Debut
SHProshots
Calling it a big deal would be a massive understatement, which is probably why Ferrari hired Ive and fellow designer Marc Newson for the task of shaping the Luce.
The exterior, in fact, has been penned by LoveFrom, the design house founded by Ive and Australian designer Newson, which makes this less a routine Ferrari project and more a collision between Maranello and Silicon Valley minimalism.
Speaking to Autocar, Ive openly admitted that he’s “anxious” about revealing the car to the world. It’s not concern over the design itself that sparks that feeling, but instead the gravity of just how big this moment is for Ferrari. He called it “still clearly a Ferrari,” but went on to say that “It’s a different manifestation based on some of the beliefs around simplicity and the inherent beauty of something.”
On the flip side, his co-designer, Newson, highlighted the freedom offered with such a project. “One of the great and serendipitous sort of things is that this is an electric vehicle, the first electric Ferrari, right? So that afforded us a degree of freedom that perhaps we would otherwise have not had: literal physical freedom or creative freedom… on many levels here,” he said.
Inside The Luce Philosophy
At this stage, we’ve already seen official bits of the interior. The brand unveiled the dash earlier this month. It’s quite the departure from other modern Ferraris. That’s key because Ive and Newson say that the entire car has a “consistency and a singularity” about it.
Ive has also stressed that there is “no disconnection” between the exterior and interior, noting that both were designed simultaneously rather than by separate departments. In his view, that approach results in a complete package that feels cohesive rather than pieced together.
What we also know so far is that the Luce will be a four-door, four-seat GT with a ride height similar to the Purosangue, and that it will feature a 1000hp four-motor powertrain. Ive has hinted that the car will be “big” in its proportions and just as radical on the outside as it is within.
Will The Luce Use Rear-Hinged Doors?
SHProshots
To that end, we wonder if the exterior will be far more retro-futurist than previously expected. While Ive was talking about the new Luce, our spies caught another heavily disguised prototype undergoing testing in northern Sweden this week.
Like earlier Luce testers, this one was wrapped in makeshift panels from top to bottom, making it extremely difficult to interpret what is happening underneath beyond a general sense of its proportions and size.
One detail our photographers did catch appears to be a set of door handles, circled in red, positioned just under the B-column in the middle section. According to our photographer, the Luce may be using suicide-style rear doors that open toward the front of the vehicle, similar to the Purosangue. This has not been officially confirmed, and it could just as easily be Ferrari engaging in a bit of cheeky misdirection.
We will know for certain in May, when Ferrari finally unveils its first EV.
China will ban concealed EV door handles starting in 2027.
New rules require mechanical releases inside and out.
Gas cars with similar handles remain exempt for now.
It’s official. China has banned electronic door handles on electric vehicles. First popularized by theTesla Model S, these sleek designs have since spread far and wide across the industry. But their safety has come under scrutiny following several high-profile fatal accidents, including incidents where children were reportedly trapped inside.
Starting in 2027, manufacturers will be required to install mechanical door handles both inside and outside electric vehicles sold in China.
The regulation takes effect on January 1, 2027, though models already approved and nearing launch will be given until January 2029 to comply. The decision follows a string of high-profile and fatal crashes in which power failures were suspected to have prevented doors from opening.
What Sparked the Change?
Most notably, two fiery Xiaomi EV crashes drew widespread attention after reports suggested occupants and rescuers were unable to open the vehicles’ electronically operated doors in time. Safety officials in China responded with a sweeping review of design standards for emergency access.
According to Bloomberg, China’s new rules are unusually specific. Exterior handles must provide a recessed handhold measuring at least 60 mm by 20 mm (2.36 inches by 0.79 inches), ensuring rescuers can physically grasp and pull them even after a crash. Inside the cabin, manufacturers must clearly label door releases with visible signage showing how to open the door in an emergency.
Interior signage must be at least 1 cm by 0.7 cm (approximately 0.39 inches by 0.28 inches), and both the interior and exterior door handles must be installed in clearly defined positions. Under the updated guidelines, automakers can no longer rely solely on electronically powered systems, even those supplemented by backup batteries or mechanical pull cables.
How Many Cars Are Affected?
That’s a major shift. Roughly 60 percent of China’s top 100 best-selling new-energy vehicles reportedly used concealed door handles as recently as April, particularly on higher-margin luxury models. The list of affected cars includes Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y, BMW’s upcoming China-spec iX3, and offerings from Nio, Li Auto, Xpeng, and Xiaomi.
Some automakers have already seen the writing on the wall. Recent models from Geely and BYD have quietly reverted to traditional exposed handles. Tesla’s design head commented months ago, when the Chinese ban was first suggested, that the brand was already working on a solution.
Even so, the redesign process could be steep. A source with knowledge of EV development in China told Bloomberg that adapting existing door systems to meet the new standards might cost upwards of 100 million yuan per model, or about $14.4 million.
One Market’s Rule, Everyone’s Problem
That helps to underscore just what a big deal this ban actually is. While Americans might not ever get their hands on a BYD or a Geely, they’re certainly familiar with Tesla. By requiring EVs to have these door handles, it’ll likely reshape the way automakers design handles worldwide.
To avoid producing separate hardware for different regions, automakers will most likely simply shift to a unified, regulation-friendly handle design across all markets. Standardizing the approach could cut costs and streamline development.
Why Only EVs?
Hilariously, there appears to be one big caveat in this whole situation. The ban in China doesn’t affect cars that aren’t electric. In other words, what the state sees as dangerous door handles can continue on other vehicles that also need a battery to operate.
That’s notable because most EVs use a 12v battery to operate their electric door latches and handles. Put another way, they’re not really any different, in terms of basic function, from a gas-powered car. Despite that, gas-powered vehicles can continue to have these “dangerous” handles under the new law.
Stephen Rivers for Carscoops
Some already use similar systems. The Infiniti QX80, for example, features pop-out door handles that depend on electrical power to present themselves. If the battery were dead or damaged in a serious crash, those handles could theoretically fail in much the same way as the EV designs China is now banning.
The Beginning of the End for Hidden Handles?
Still, the precedent matters. By drawing a hard line on power-only door access, China may end up stopping this design trend from spreading further across the industry. And if regulators in Europe or the U.S. follow suit, the rulebook could eventually expand to cover all passenger vehicles, regardless of what’s under the hood.
In fact, early signs suggest that may already be happening. Tesla is currently facing a formal investigation into its door systems in the United States, and European regulators have begun exploring restrictions of their own.
Genesis shared a design study for a US-targeted electric pickup.
The concept used a ladder frame and fully electric drivetrain.
Design sketches showed production-like wheels and detailing.
Genesis’s designers have had their hands full lately, dreaming up all kinds of projects that could eventually lead to production cars. Some we’ve already seen up close, like the G90 Magma Performance Wagon and the Magma GT, their mid-engine Corvette rival, but others have stayed behind closed doors. Until now.
We’ve already told you about the minivan and the hydrogen SUV studies, but there’s one more you wouldn’t usually expect from a premium brand, a project simply known as “The Pickup.” It’s a design exercise for a fully electric model aimed at the North American market. The project has been shelved for now, but it’s not entirely off the table for the future.
Hyundai Motor Group’s Chief Creative Officer, Luc Donckerwolke, recently acknowledged that Genesis had been exploring the idea. Ultimately, though, the team felt “it was not the right time,” choosing instead to focus on performance-focused Magma models.
First Glimpse of a Truck That Might Have Been
Most concepts like this stay buried inside design studios, rarely seeing the light of day. This time, however, Genesis opted to pull back the curtain slightly, sharing official sketches and renderings. The images originally appeared in the January/February issue of Auto&Designmagazine, but Genesis has also released them directly to Carscoops.
Visually, the design stays rooted in Genesis’s familiar language. Two-Line LED headlights sweep back into pronounced front fenders, mirrored by the taillight design at the rear. The large Crest grille remains a focal point, flanked by sleek side intakes and a sturdy aluminum skid plate anchoring the front bumper.
The profile is defined by imposing proportions, with a tall hood, a sizable rear bed, and an aerodynamic greenhouse. The sketches also show oversized wheels fitted with futuristic alloy designs and chunky, high-grip tires.
Another variation of the concept study features a flip-up panel on the nose that reveals a storage compartment, along with added space in the side skirts for portable batteries or other small items. This version takes a more minimalist approach to the styling, paired with more pronounced fenders for a bolder stance.
Designed for Americans
Genesis confirms the concept was developed with the American market in mind, and had it gone further, it would have ridden on the same ladder-frame chassis as the X Gran Equator Concept. That would mean better off-road capability and hauling strength than you’d get from a unibody setup.
No specific power or range figures have been shared, though it’s safe to assume the EV platform would support all-wheel drive. In one rendering, the truck is shown towing a custom-designed Airstream camper, suggesting it was at least envisioned with serious towing capability in mind.
The cabin gets a brief preview as well. One sketch shows a five-seater layout with a mix of soft, cylindrical forms across the dash, console, and seats. A two-spoke steering wheel and slim digital instrument panel create a minimalistic front row, with a curved passenger display extending the width of the dashboard.
However, Donckerwolke’s more recent comments to Auto&Design suggest the idea isn’t entirely off the table. “An electricpickup truck? Why not?” he said. “Then we discarded it because we had to focus on different projects. Maybe in the future, who knows.”
It wouldn’t be surprising if Genesis revisits the truck segment down the line, possibly sharing underpinnings with one of Hyundai’s upcoming pickups. The Korean automaker is already developing an electric truck that could slot into the Ioniq lineup, along with ladder-frame midsize pickups for the U.S. and Australian markets, some of which may use a range-extender powertrain.
In a comment to Carscoops, a Genesis spokesperson clarified how these internal projects often unfold. “Genesis often undertakes future design exercises to explore possibilities for our ever-expanding portfolio,” he told us. “While some of these concepts ultimately don’t move forward to production, this showcases the broad capabilities and strengths of the Genesis design team.”
On May 6, MIT AgeLab’s Advanced Vehicle Technology (AVT) Consortium, part of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, celebrated 10 years of its global academic-industry collaboration. AVT was founded with the aim of developing new data that contribute to automotive manufacturers, suppliers, and insurers’ real-world understanding of how drivers use and respond to increasingly sophisticated vehicle technologies, such as assistive and automated driving, while accelerating the applied insight needed to advance design and development. The celebration event brought together stakeholders from across the industry for a set of keynote addresses and panel discussions on critical topics significant to the industry and its future, including artificial intelligence, automotive technology, collision repair, consumer behavior, sustainability, vehicle safety policy, and global competitiveness.
Bryan Reimer, founder and co-director of the AVT Consortium, opened the event by remarking that over the decade AVT has collected hundreds of terabytes of data, presented and discussed research with its over 25 member organizations, supported members’ strategic and policy initiatives, published select outcomes, and built AVT into a global influencer with tremendous impact in the automotive industry. He noted that current opportunities and challenges for the industry include distracted driving, a lack of consumer trust and concerns around transparency in assistive and automated driving features, and high consumer expectations for vehicle technology, safety, and affordability. How will industry respond? Major players in attendance weighed in.
In a powerful exchange on vehicle safety regulation, John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Mark Rosekind, former chief safety innovation officer of Zoox, former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, challenged industry and government to adopt a more strategic, data-driven, and collaborative approach to safety. They asserted that regulation must evolve alongside innovation, not lag behind it by decades. Appealing to the automakers in attendance, Bozzella cited the success of voluntary commitments on automatic emergency braking as a model for future progress. “That’s a way to do something important and impactful ahead of regulation.” They advocated for shared data platforms, anonymous reporting, and a common regulatory vision that sets safety baselines while allowing room for experimentation. The 40,000 annual road fatalities demand urgency — what’s needed is a move away from tactical fixes and toward a systemic safety strategy. “Safety delayed is safety denied,” Rosekind stated. “Tell me how you’re going to improve safety. Let’s be explicit.”
Drawing inspiration from aviation’s exemplary safety record, Kathy Abbott, chief scientific and technical advisor for the Federal Aviation Administration, pointed to a culture of rigorous regulation, continuous improvement, and cross-sectoral data sharing. Aviation’s model, built on highly trained personnel and strict predictability standards, contrasts sharply with the fragmented approach in the automotive industry. The keynote emphasized that a foundation of safety culture — one that recognizes that technological ability alone isn’t justification for deployment — must guide the auto industry forward. Just as aviation doesn’t equate absence of failure with success, vehicle safety must be measured holistically and proactively.
With assistive and automated driving top of mind in the industry, Pete Bigelow of Automotive News offered a pragmatic diagnosis. With companies like Ford and Volkswagen stepping back from full autonomy projects like Argo AI, the industry is now focused on Level 2 and 3 technologies, which refer to assisted and automated driving, respectively. Tesla, GM, and Mercedes are experimenting with subscription models for driver assistance systems, yet consumer confusion remains high. JD Power reports that many drivers do not grasp the differences between L2 and L2+, or whether these technologies offer safety or convenience features. Safety benefits have yet to manifest in reduced traffic deaths, which have risen by 20 percent since 2020. The recurring challenge: L3 systems demand that human drivers take over during technical difficulties, despite driver disengagement being their primary benefit, potentially worsening outcomes. Bigelow cited a quote from Bryan Reimer as one of the best he’s received in his career: “Level 3 systems are an engineer’s dream and a plaintiff attorney’s next yacht,” highlighting the legal and design complexity of systems that demand handoffs between machine and human.
In terms of the impact of AI on the automotive industry, Mauricio Muñoz, senior research engineer at AI Sweden, underscored that despite AI’s transformative potential, the automotive industry cannot rely on general AI megatrends to solve domain-specific challenges. While landmark achievements like AlphaFold demonstrate AI’s prowess, automotive applications require domain expertise, data sovereignty, and targeted collaboration. Energy constraints, data firewalls, and the high costs of AI infrastructure all pose limitations, making it critical that companies fund purpose-driven research that can reduce costs and improve implementation fidelity. Muñoz warned that while excitement abounds — with some predicting artificial superintelligence by 2028 — real progress demands organizational alignment and a deep understanding of the automotive context, not just computational power.
Turning the focus to consumers, a collision repair panel drawing Richard Billyeald from Thatcham Research, Hami Ebrahimi from Caliber Collision, and Mike Nelson from Nelson Law explored the unintended consequences of vehicle technology advances: spiraling repair costs, labor shortages, and a lack of repairability standards. Panelists warned that even minor repairs for advanced vehicles now require costly and complex sensor recalibrations — compounded by inconsistent manufacturer guidance and no clear consumer alerts when systems are out of calibration. The panel called for greater standardization, consumer education, and repair-friendly design. As insurance premiums climb and more people forgo insurance claims, the lack of coordination between automakers, regulators, and service providers threatens consumer safety and undermines trust. The group warned that until Level 2 systems function reliably and affordably, moving toward Level 3 autonomy is premature and risky.
While the repair panel emphasized today’s urgent challenges, other speakers looked to the future. Honda’s Ryan Harty, for example, highlighted the company’s aggressive push toward sustainability and safety. Honda aims for zero environmental impact and zero traffic fatalities, with plans to be 100 percent electric by 2040 and to lead in energy storage and clean power integration. The company has developed tools to coach young drivers and is investing in charging infrastructure, grid-aware battery usage, and green hydrogen storage. “What consumers buy in the market dictates what the manufacturers make,” Harty noted, underscoring the importance of aligning product strategy with user demand and environmental responsibility. He stressed that manufacturers can only decarbonize as fast as the industry allows, and emphasized the need to shift from cost-based to life-cycle-based product strategies.
Finally, a panel involving Laura Chace of ITS America, Jon Demerly of Qualcomm, Brad Stertz of Audi/VW Group, and Anant Thaker of Aptiv covered the near-, mid-, and long-term future of vehicle technology. Panelists emphasized that consumer expectations, infrastructure investment, and regulatory modernization must evolve together. Despite record bicycle fatality rates and persistent distracted driving, features like school bus detection and stop sign alerts remain underutilized due to skepticism and cost. Panelists stressed that we must design systems for proactive safety rather than reactive response. The slow integration of digital infrastructure — sensors, edge computing, data analytics — stems not only from technical hurdles, but procurement and policy challenges as well.
Reimer concluded the event by urging industry leaders to re-center the consumer in all conversations — from affordability to maintenance and repair. With the rising costs of ownership, growing gaps in trust in technology, and misalignment between innovation and consumer value, the future of mobility depends on rebuilding trust and reshaping industry economics. He called for global collaboration, greater standardization, and transparent innovation that consumers can understand and afford. He highlighted that global competitiveness and public safety both hang in the balance. As Reimer noted, “success will come through partnerships” — between industry, academia, and government — that work toward shared investment, cultural change, and a collective willingness to prioritize the public good.
Across a career’s worth of pioneering product designs, Doug Field’s work has shaped the experience of anyone who’s ever used a MacBook Air, ridden a Segway, or driven a Tesla Model 3.
But his newest project is his most ambitious yet: reinventing the Ford automobile, one of the past century’s most iconic pieces of technology.
As Ford’s chief electric vehicle (EV), digital, and design officer, Field is tasked with leading the development of the company’s electric vehicles, while making new software platforms central to all Ford models.
To bring Ford Motor Co. into that digital and electric future, Field effectively has to lead a fast-moving startup inside the legacy carmaker. “It is incredibly hard, figuring out how to do ‘startups’ within large organizations,” he concedes.
If anyone can pull it off, it’s likely to be Field. Ever since his time in MIT’s Leaders for Global Operations (then known as “Leaders in Manufacturing”) program studying organizational behavior and strategy, Field has been fixated on creating the conditions that foster innovation.
“The natural state of an organization is to make it harder and harder to do those things: to innovate, to have small teams, to go against the grain,” he says. To overcome those forces, Field has become a master practitioner of the art of curating diverse, talented teams and helping them flourish inside of big, complex companies.
“It’s one thing to make a creative environment where you can come up with big ideas,” he says. “It’s another to create an execution-focused environment to crank things out. I became intrigued with, and have been for the rest of my career, this question of how can you have both work together?”
Three decades after his first stint as a development engineer at Ford Motor Co., Field now has a chance to marry the manufacturing muscle of Ford with the bold approach that helped him rethink Apple’s laptops and craft Tesla’s Model 3 sedan. His task is nothing less than rethinking how cars are made and operated, from the bottom up.
“If it’s only creative or execution, you’re not going to change the world,” he says. “If you want to have a huge impact, you need people to change the course you’re on, and you need people to build it.”
A passion for design
From a young age, Field had a fascination with automobiles. “I was definitely into cars and transportation more generally,” he says. “I thought of cars as the place where technology and art and human design came together — cars were where all my interests intersected.”
With a mother who was an artist and musician and an engineer father, Field credits his parents’ influence for his lifelong interest in both the aesthetic and technical elements of product design. “I think that’s why I’m drawn to autos — there’s very much an aesthetic aspect to the product,” he says.
After earning a degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue University, Field took a job at Ford in 1987. The big Detroit automakers of that era excelled at mass-producing cars, but weren’t necessarily set up to encourage or reward innovative thinking. Field chafed at the “overstructured and bureaucratic” operational culture he encountered.
The experience was frustrating at times, but also valuable and clarifying. He realized that he “wanted to work with fast-moving, technology-based businesses.”
“My interest in advancing technical problem-solving didn’t have a place in the auto industry” at the time, he says. “I knew I wanted to work with passionate people and create something that didn’t exist, in an environment where talent and innovation were prized, where irreverence was an asset and not a liability. When I read about Silicon Valley, I loved the way they talked about things.”
During that time, Field took two years off to enroll in MIT’s LGO program, where he deepened his technical skills and encountered ideas about manufacturing processes and team-driven innovation that would serve him well in the years ahead.
“Some of core skill sets that I developed there were really, really important,” he says, “in the context of production lines and production processes.” He studied systems engineering and the use of Monte Carlo simulations to model complex manufacturing environments. During his internship with aerospace manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, he worked on automated design in computer-aided design (CAD) systems, long before those techniques became standard practice.
Another powerful tool he picked up was the science of probability and statistics, under the tutelage of MIT Professor Alvin Drake in his legendary course 6.041/6.431 (Probabilistic Systems Analysis). Field would go on to apply those insights not only to production processes, but also to characterizing variability in people’s aptitudes, working styles, and talents, in the service of building better, more innovative teams. And studying organizational strategy catalyzed his career-long interest in “ways to look at innovation as an outcome, rather than a random spark of genius.”
“So many things I was lucky to be exposed to at MIT,” Field says, were “all building blocks, pieces of the puzzle, that helped me navigate through difficult situations later on.”
Learning while leading
After leaving Ford in 1993, Field worked at Johnson and Johnson Medical for three years in process development. There, he met Segway inventor Dean Kamen, who was working on a project called the iBOT, a gyroscopic powered wheelchair that could climb stairs.
When Kamen spun off Segway to develop a new personal mobility device using the same technology, Field became his first hire. He spent nearly a decade as the firm’s chief technology officer.
At Segway, Field’s interests in vehicles, technology, innovation, process, and human-centered design all came together.
“When I think about working now on electric cars, it was a real gift,” he says. The problems they tackled prefigured the ones he would grapple with later at Tesla and Ford. “Segway was very much a precursor to a modern EV. Completely software controlled, with higher-voltage batteries, redundant systems, traction control, brushless DC motors — it was basically a miniature Tesla in the year 2000.”
At Segway, Field assembled an “amazing” team of engineers and designers who were as passionate as he was about pushing the envelope. “Segway was the first place I was able to hand-pick every single person I worked with, define the culture, and define the mission.”
As he grew into this leadership role, he became equally engrossed with cracking another puzzle: “How do you prize people who don’t fit in?”
“Such a fundamental part of the fabric of Silicon Valley is the love of embracing talent over a traditional organization’s ways of measuring people,” he says. “If you want to innovate, you need to learn how to manage neurodivergence and a very different set of personalities than the people you find in large corporations.”
Field still keeps the base housing of a Segway in his office, as a reminder of what those kinds of teams — along with obsessive attention to detail — can achieve.
Before joining Apple in 2008, he showed that component, with its clean lines and every minuscule part in its place in one unified package, to his prospective new colleagues. “They were like, “OK, you’re one of us,’” he recalls.
He soon became vice president of hardware development for all Mac computers, leading the teams behind the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro and eventually overseeing more than 2,000 employees. “Making things really simple and really elegant, thinking about the product as an integrated whole, that really took me into Apple.”
The challenge of giving the MacBook Air its signature sleek and light profile is an example.
“The MacBook Air was the first high-volume consumer electronic product built out of a CNC-machined enclosure,” says Field. He worked with industrial design and technology teams to devise a way to make the laptop from one solid piece of aluminum and jettison two-thirds of the parts found in the iMac. “We had material cut away so that every single screw and piece of electronics sat down into it an integrated way. That’s how we got the product so small and slim.”
“When I interviewed with Jony Ive” — Apple’s legendary chief design officer — “he said your ability to zoom out and zoom in was the number one most important ability as a leader at Apple.” That meant zooming out to think about “the entire ethos of this product, and the way it will affect the world” and zooming all the way back in to obsess over, say, the physical shape of the laptop itself and what it feels like in a user’s hands.
“That thread of attention to detail, passion for product, design plus technology rolled directly into what I was doing at Tesla,” he says. When Field joined Tesla in 2013, he was drawn to the way the brash startup upended the approach to making cars. “Tesla was integrating digital technology into cars in a way nobody else was. They said, ‘We’re not a car company in Silicon Valley, we’re a Silicon Valley company and we happen to make cars.’”
Field assembled and led the team that produced the Model 3 sedan, Tesla’s most affordable vehicle, designed to have mass-market appeal.
That experience only reinforced the importance, and power, of zooming in and out as a designer — in a way that encompasses the bigger human resources picture.
“You have to have a broad sense of what you’re trying to accomplish and help people in the organization understand what it means to them,” he says. “You have to go across and understand operations enough to glue all of those (things) together — while still being great at and focused on something very, very deeply. That’s T-shaped leadership.”
He credits his time at LGO with providing the foundation for the “T-shaped leadership” he practices.
“An education like the one I got at MIT allowed me to keep moving that ‘T’, to focus really deep, learn a ton, teach as much as I can, and after something gets more mature, pull out and bed down into other areas where the organization needs to grow or where there’s a crisis.”
The power of marrying scale to a “startup mentality”
In 2018, Field returned to Apple as a vice president for special projects. “I left Tesla after Model 3 and Y started to ramp, as there were people better than me to run high-volume manufacturing,” he says. “I went back to Apple hoping what Tesla had learned would motivate Apple to get into a different market.”
That market was his early love: cars. Field quietly led a project to develop an electric vehicle at Apple for three years.
Then Ford CEO Jim Farley came calling. He persuaded Field to return to Ford in late 2021, partly by demonstrating how much things had changed since his first stint as the carmaker.
“Two things came through loud and clear,” Field says. “One was humility. ‘Our success is not assured.’” That attitude was strikingly different from Field’s early experience in Detroit, encountering managers who were resistant to change. “The other thing was urgency. Jim and Bill Ford said the exact same thing to me: ‘We have four or five years to completely remake this company.’”
“I said, ‘OK, if the top of company really believes that, then the auto industry may be ready for what I hope to offer.’”
So far, Field is energized and encouraged by the appetite for reinvention he’s encountered this time around at Ford.
“If you can combine what Ford does really well with what a Tesla or Rivian can do well, this is something to be reckoned with,” says Field. “Skunk works have become one of the fundamental tools of my career,” he says, using an industry term that describes a project pursued by a small, autonomous group of people within a larger organization.
Ford has been developing a new, lower-cost, software-enabled EV platform — running all of the car’s sensors and components from a central digital operating system — with a “skunk works” team for the past two years. The company plans to build new sedans, SUVs, and small pickups based on this new platform.
With other legacy carmakers like Volvo racing into the electric future and fierce competition from EV leaders Tesla and Rivian, Field and his colleagues have their work cut out for them.
If he succeeds, leveraging his decades of learning and leading from LGO to Silicon Valley, then his latest chapter could transform the way we all drive — and secure a spot for Ford at the front of the electric vehicle pack in the process.
“I’ve been lucky to feel over and over that what I’m doing right now — they are going to write a book about it,” say Field. “This is a big deal, for Ford and the U.S. auto industry, and for American industry, actually.”
“So many things I was lucky to be exposed to at MIT,” Doug Field says, were “all building blocks, pieces of the puzzle, that helped me navigate through difficult situations later on.”
Car design is an iterative and proprietary process. Carmakers can spend several years on the design phase for a car, tweaking 3D forms in simulations before building out the most promising designs for physical testing. The details and specs of these tests, including the aerodynamics of a given car design, are typically not made public. Significant advances in performance, such as in fuel efficiency or electric vehicle range, can therefore be slow and siloed from company to company.
MIT engineers say that the search for better car designs can speed up exponentially with the use of generative artificial intelligence tools that can plow through huge amounts of data in seconds and find connections to generate a novel design. While such AI tools exist, the data they would need to learn from have not been available, at least in any sort of accessible, centralized form.
But now, the engineers have made just such a dataset available to the public for the first time. Dubbed DrivAerNet++, the dataset encompasses more than 8,000 car designs, which the engineers generated based on the most common types of cars in the world today. Each design is represented in 3D form and includes information on the car’s aerodynamics — the way air would flow around a given design, based on simulations of fluid dynamics that the group carried out for each design.
Each of the dataset’s 8,000 designs is available in several representations, such as mesh, point cloud, or a simple list of the design’s parameters and dimensions. As such, the dataset can be used by different AI models that are tuned to process data in a particular modality.
DrivAerNet++ is the largest open-source dataset for car aerodynamics that has been developed to date. The engineers envision it being used as an extensive library of realistic car designs, with detailed aerodynamics data that can be used to quickly train any AI model. These models can then just as quickly generate novel designs that could potentially lead to more fuel-efficient cars and electric vehicles with longer range, in a fraction of the time that it takes the automotive industry today.
“This dataset lays the foundation for the next generation of AI applications in engineering, promoting efficient design processes, cutting R&D costs, and driving advancements toward a more sustainable automotive future,” says Mohamed Elrefaie, a mechanical engineering graduate student at MIT.
Elrefaie and his colleagues will present a paper detailing the new dataset, and AI methods that could be applied to it, at the NeurIPS conference in December. His co-authors are Faez Ahmed, assistant professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, along with Angela Dai, associate professor of computer science at the Technical University of Munich, and Florin Marar of BETA CAE Systems.
Filling the data gap
Ahmed leads the Design Computation and Digital Engineering Lab (DeCoDE) at MIT, where his group explores ways in which AI and machine-learning tools can be used to enhance the design of complex engineering systems and products, including car technology.
“Often when designing a car, the forward process is so expensive that manufacturers can only tweak a car a little bit from one version to the next,” Ahmed says. “But if you have larger datasets where you know the performance of each design, now you can train machine-learning models to iterate fast so you are more likely to get a better design.”
And speed, particularly for advancing car technology, is particularly pressing now.
“This is the best time for accelerating car innovations, as automobiles are one of the largest polluters in the world, and the faster we can shave off that contribution, the more we can help the climate,” Elrefaie says.
In looking at the process of new car design, the researchers found that, while there are AI models that could crank through many car designs to generate optimal designs, the car data that is actually available is limited. Some researchers had previously assembled small datasets of simulated car designs, while car manufacturers rarely release the specs of the actual designs they explore, test, and ultimately manufacture.
The team sought to fill the data gap, particularly with respect to a car’s aerodynamics, which plays a key role in setting the range of an electric vehicle, and the fuel efficiency of an internal combustion engine. The challenge, they realized, was in assembling a dataset of thousands of car designs, each of which is physically accurate in their function and form, without the benefit of physically testing and measuring their performance.
To build a dataset of car designs with physically accurate representations of their aerodynamics, the researchers started with several baseline 3D models that were provided by Audi and BMW in 2014. These models represent three major categories of passenger cars: fastback (sedans with a sloped back end), notchback (sedans or coupes with a slight dip in their rear profile) and estateback (such as station wagons with more blunt, flat backs). The baseline models are thought to bridge the gap between simple designs and more complicated proprietary designs, and have been used by other groups as a starting point for exploring new car designs.
Library of cars
In their new study, the team applied a morphing operation to each of the baseline car models. This operation systematically made a slight change to each of 26 parameters in a given car design, such as its length, underbody features, windshield slope, and wheel tread, which it then labeled as a distinct car design, which was then added to the growing dataset. Meanwhile, the team ran an optimization algorithm to ensure that each new design was indeed distinct, and not a copy of an already-generated design. They then translated each 3D design into different modalities, such that a given design can be represented as a mesh, a point cloud, or a list of dimensions and specs.
The researchers also ran complex, computational fluid dynamics simulations to calculate how air would flow around each generated car design. In the end, this effort produced more than 8,000 distinct, physically accurate 3D car forms, encompassing the most common types of passenger cars on the road today.
To produce this comprehensive dataset, the researchers spent over 3 million CPU hours using the MIT SuperCloud, and generated 39 terabytes of data. (For comparison, it’s estimated that the entire printed collection of the Library of Congress would amount to about 10 terabytes of data.)
The engineers say that researchers can now use the dataset to train a particular AI model. For instance, an AI model could be trained on a part of the dataset to learn car configurations that have certain desirable aerodynamics. Within seconds, the model could then generate a new car design with optimized aerodynamics, based on what it has learned from the dataset’s thousands of physically accurate designs.
The researchers say the dataset could also be used for the inverse goal. For instance, after training an AI model on the dataset, designers could feed the model a specific car design and have it quickly estimate the design’s aerodynamics, which can then be used to compute the car’s potential fuel efficiency or electric range — all without carrying out expensive building and testing of a physical car.
“What this dataset allows you to do is train generative AI models to do things in seconds rather than hours,” Ahmed says. “These models can help lower fuel consumption for internal combustion vehicles and increase the range of electric cars — ultimately paving the way for more sustainable, environmentally friendly vehicles.”
“The dataset is very comprehensive and consists of a diverse set of modalities that are valuable to understand both styling and performance,” says Yanxia Zhang, a senior machine learning research scientist at Toyota Research Institute, who was not involved in the study.
This work was supported, in part, by the German Academic Exchange Service and the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT.
In a new dataset that includes more than 8,000 car designs, MIT engineers simulated the aerodynamics for a given car shape, which they represent in various modalities, including “surface fields.”
As a major contributor to global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the transportation sector has immense potential to advance decarbonization. However, a zero-emissions global supply chain requires re-imagining reliance on a heavy-duty trucking industry that emits 810,000 tons of CO2, or 6 percent of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions, and consumes 29 billion gallons of diesel annually in the U.S. alone.
A new study by MIT researchers, presented at the recent American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2024 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, quantifies the impact of a zero-emission truck’s design range on its energy storage requirements and operational revenue. The multivariable model outlined in the paper allows fleet owners and operators to better understand the design choices that impact the economic feasibility of battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell heavy-duty trucks for commercial application, equipping stakeholders to make informed fleet transition decisions.
“The whole issue [of decarbonizing trucking] is like a very big, messy pie. One of the things we can do, from an academic standpoint, is quantify some of those pieces of pie with modeling, based on information and experience we’ve learned from industry stakeholders,” says ZhiYi Liang, PhD student on the renewable hydrogen team at the MIT K. Lisa Yang Global Engineering and Research Center (GEAR) and lead author of the study. Co-authored by Bryony DuPont, visiting scholar at GEAR, and Amos Winter, the Germeshausen Professor in the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering, the paper elucidates operational and socioeconomic factors that need to be considered in efforts to decarbonize heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs).
Operational and infrastructure challenges
The team’s model shows that a technical challenge lies in the amount of energy that needs to be stored on the truck to meet the range and towing performance needs of commercial trucking applications. Due to the high energy density and low cost of diesel, existing diesel drivetrains remain more competitive than alternative lithium battery-electric vehicle (Li-BEV) and hydrogen fuel-cell-electric vehicle (H2 FCEV) drivetrains. Although Li-BEV drivetrains have the highest energy efficiency of all three, they are limited to short-to-medium range routes (under 500 miles) with low freight capacity, due to the weight and volume of the onboard energy storage needed. In addition, the authors note that existing electric grid infrastructure will need significant upgrades to support large-scale deployment of Li-BEV HDVs.
While the hydrogen-powered drivetrain has a significant weight advantage that enables higher cargo capacity and routes over 750 miles, the current state of hydrogen fuel networks limits economic viability, especially once operational cost and projected revenue are taken into account. Deployment will most likely require government intervention in the form of incentives and subsidies to reduce the price of hydrogen by more than half, as well as continued investment by corporations to ensure a stable supply. Also, as H2-FCEVs are still a relatively new technology, the ongoing design of conformal onboard hydrogen storage systems — one of which is the subject of Liang’s PhD — is crucial to successful adoption into the HDV market.
The current efficiency of diesel systems is a result of technological developments and manufacturing processes established over many decades, a precedent that suggests similar strides can be made with alternative drivetrains. However, interactions with fleet owners, automotive manufacturers, and refueling network providers reveal another major hurdle in the way that each “slice of the pie” is interrelated — issues must be addressed simultaneously because of how they affect each other, from renewable fuel infrastructure to technological readiness and capital cost of new fleets, among other considerations. And first steps into an uncertain future, where no one sector is fully in control of potential outcomes, is inherently risky.
“Besides infrastructure limitations, we only have prototypes [of alternative HDVs] for fleet operator use, so the cost of procuring them is high, which means there isn’t demand for automakers to build manufacturing lines up to a scale that would make them economical to produce,” says Liang, describing just one step of a vicious cycle that is difficult to disrupt, especially for industry stakeholders trying to be competitive in a free market.
Quantifying a path to feasibility
“Folks in the industry know that some kind of energy transition needs to happen, but they may not necessarily know for certain what the most viable path forward is,” says Liang. Although there is no singular avenue to zero emissions, the new model provides a way to further quantify and assess at least one slice of pie to aid decision-making.
Other MIT-led efforts aimed at helping industry stakeholders navigate decarbonization include an interactive mapping tool developed by Danika MacDonell, Impact Fellow at the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium (MCSC); alongside Florian Allroggen, executive director of MITs Zero Impact Aviation Alliance; and undergraduate researchers Micah Borrero, Helena De Figueiredo Valente, and Brooke Bao. The MCSC’s Geospatial Decision Support Tool supports strategic decision-making for fleet operators by allowing them to visualize regional freight flow densities, costs, emissions, planned and available infrastructure, and relevant regulations and incentives by region.
While current limitations reveal the need for joint problem-solving across sectors, the authors believe that stakeholders are motivated and ready to tackle climate problems together. Once-competing businesses already appear to be embracing a culture shift toward collaboration, with the recent agreement between General Motors and Hyundai to explore “future collaboration across key strategic areas,” including clean energy.
Liang believes that transitioning the transportation sector to zero emissions is just one part of an “energy revolution” that will require all sectors to work together, because “everything is connected. In order for the whole thing to make sense, we need to consider ourselves part of that pie, and the entire system needs to change,” says Liang. “You can’t make a revolution succeed by yourself.”
The authors acknowledge the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium for connecting them with industry members in the HDV ecosystem; and the MIT K. Lisa Yang Global Engineering and Research Center and MIT Morningside Academy for Design for financial support.
A new study by MIT researchers quantifies the impact of a zero-emission truck’s design range on its energy storage requirements and operational revenue.
Login
