In fact, the top 3 models in the US are F-Series, Silverado, and Ram, so the environment will definitely appreciate the electrified competition the F-Series will force.
https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/11/the-case-against-neighb...
I bring this up because it's a fascinating trade-off when it comes to diesels, where increased NOx emission can reduce CO2 emission substantially (through improved combustion temperatures leading to lower fuel burn) - the exact tradeoff VW were illegally making in their "cheating" diesel cars.
Oh HN.
I'm not sure about the USA, but at least in Australia 2 strokes aren't very common at all these days. I don't remember the last time I saw a 2 stroke lawnmower or any other type of garden tool. Electric is probably more popular than petrol for home use, as it doesn't require you to keep a little tank of petrol lying around and it's a lot quieter.
If you drove a 2 stoke dirt bike around people will call the police and complain about noise. I know from my teenager years.
Its not insane when you consider any number of factors, starting with the fact that Americans are BIG. As a large person myself (although not overweight), I'm here to tell you that what a 120 pound 5'6" person finds comfortable frequently is painful for me.
Second, I spend upwards of 2+ hours a day sitting my my car, spending a couple grand extra a year for a seat that is 6" wider, doesn't require me to have the flexibility of a 15 year old doing a deep knee bend every-time I get in/out of my car, and allows me to sit upright rather than tilting the seat back into the second row is well worth it.
Third, while there are some SUV's and maybe minivans that qualify on the comfort front, they either tend to be less efficient, cost more, or have social stigma associated with them.
Sure if I had two vehicles, I might be able to get away with driving the truck on the weekend or when I actually need it, but the convenience of being able to throw a bike, kayak, lawn mower, TV, piece of plywood/drywall/2x4/etc in the back when I need to is worth it. Plus, I tow something maybe once a year, but again, if you only have 1 vehicle.. The two vehicle argument might make more sense, if there was space and insurance/taxes/etc were per person rather than per vehicle.
Finally, part of the problem is the American car market. Sedan seems to frequently translate to econobox. In Europe a basic car is smaller, but somehow frequently seems to have far more leg and headroom than a similar American car. This space problem seems to extend from the econoboxes in the US to the luxury car market as well. Apparently in the US, taking an econobox, putting leather and a bigger engine in while leaving the chassis/etc the same (or streamlining it and making it even smaller as honda/acura seems to do) is common. The result is that if your bigger than average, you likely don't fit in something that isn't a SUV/Truck.
My supposition is that electric vehicles are just a lot more efficient on space. The leaf isn't a huge car externally (although it's not exactly small either), but it's the biggest interior I've ridden in for a long time (probably not since my Grandfather's Buick).
As for the 2 car issue, I actually don't use a car much at all. The only reason we have one is because my wife insists that she needs it. Getting things delivered is both more convenient and cheaper from my perspective. The trade off is that I need to plan ahead a day or so, but I don't actually have to lift big heavy stuff. If I need to haul something bigger, I just rent the appropriate vehicle. I usually end up renting once or twice a year. It saves massive amounts of money. It is a lifestyle change, but it's got upsides as well as downsides.
How about sporting activities? Own a boat? A snowmobile? A few kayaks maybe? Dirt bike?
I assume you have a trash pickup at your place. You know a lot of towns don’t, and you have to haul your own trash to the town dump?
Perhaps there are a million reasons why it’s great in your life to not own or even feel like you need a car. Perhaps there are a million other reasons people want and need a truck to drive.
Personally, once I started maintaining a house and an acre of land, the way I wanted to maintain it, it gets very difficult having to wait hours for someone to return with the Home Depot truck because I need to get xyz thing home. I mooch off my brother a lot to move heavier equipment around, because he has a truck and a trailer, but there are a lot of projects I can’t get done for lack of a proper work vehicle.
I order a lot of stuff off Amazon. But every time I’ve tried ordering groceries I’ve regretted it. Mostly because they insist on delivering from a store 13 miles away when there’s a perfectly good Whole Foods 3.5 miles down the road, and it just seems so asinine.
Anyway, I looked it up, and for comparison a tundra:
headroom: 39.4 vs 39.7
legroom: 42.3 vs 42.5
(so fairly similar on the head/leg, what about big in the other direction)
shoulder: 55.0 vs 65.7
hip: 53.4 vs 62.6
Hmmm not so similar. Also, the tundra has the least headroom of any full size pickup. The GM/chevy's have 4" more, which for tall people is literally a life/death choice if they get into certain accidents where their head impacts the ceiling.
I can also put the seat all the way back and still fit someone behind me.
It has much more passenger room than my Toyota truck. Very happy with it.
Similarly my 2002 Tahoe (same vehicle as Silverado, Yukon, suburban etc in most aspects) has a ton of room for repositioning myself in the drivers seat, I can and have driven it 8+ hours in a day with no discomfort whatsoever. However my father in law has a suburban of a generation after mine, and while I still could drive it comfortably, there is only one available position for me, even with the addition of a telescoping wheel in the later year models. I would be exhausted after two hours from the inability to reposition myself.
I suspect at least part of it has to do with fuel economy standards which are partially being met by reducing the frontal area of the car. The easiest way to do that is to take a couple inches off the height of the vehicle.
Safety standards similarly are affecting the driver position and the crash test dummies aren't 7' tall. I noticed this a few years ago when the headrest standards changed and I now have a piece of headrest that doesn't raise high enough but sticks forward 8" pressing into the middle of my back in cars that would otherwise be ok to sit in. (I have the same problem on airplanes).
As my height is mostly in my legs, I don't notice the head room issues as much, but I notice across all three vehicles I've mentioned, they all have very minimalist dashboards, basically a flat slab sloped away from the cabin as you descend with some knobs on it. I could hang my right knee out in that space in front of the controls and over the gear shift if I wanted to stretch or twist, and all that is taken up by super tall consoles, or climate control panels that jut out and tilt toward the driver now.
Since you mentioned Mustangs though, I had this same issue in the '96-'04 generation of Mustangs, but on the driver side. The way the door handle assembly curved inward toward the driver to meet the dash made actually quite a small space between the door and the steering wheel. If I put my left hand at 9 o'clock on the wheel, it was physically impossible for me to raise my left leg high enough to work the clutch, as the combo of wheel/hand/door blocked my knee from coming up as high as it needed.
I wonder if this is some sort of "perception of safety" design, as all these spaces I'm talking about would normally be empty and useless with an average driver, and so these big interior panels are growing into those spaces, perhaps to enhance the feeling of being cocooned and secured by the vehicle? Similarly center consoles keep getting taller as well. Just a thought.
As you mentioned telescoping steering, I have to point out the toyota FJ, which I would have purchased because sitting it in was incredible... OTOH, the steering wheel didn't telescope, and the pedals weren't positioned particularly deeply, so while the seat slid backwards with incredible range, to drive it without leaning forward to hold the steering wheel required having the seat so far forward as to cramp my legs.. Just a couple inches of telescope would have made all the difference.
There are far more compact cars sold than pickup trucks, it's just that most manufacturers only offer one model of pickup truck, and often offer several similar models of compact cars, hatchbacks, sedans, and SUVs.
In NZ, Ford offers 3 different small passenger cars and 4 different SUVs, but only one pickup [1]. Toyota is much the same.
'You do you', I guess.
(If so that's just fine. But I'm in Texas, and I'm pretty sure most of these folks could get by on something smaller...)
They claimed to like trucks for the convenience. Being able to throw stuff in the back and not have to think about whether it will fit in a car. While I do understand this advantage, it would only help me 2-3 times a year, and I aim to optimize for the 95% of daily driving.
There is definitely a social and fashion element to it too, just like there is with any brand/type of vehicle.
That said, I still don't personally own a truck, borrowing them as needed. An all-electric model of good quality would be pretty tempting to me.
But trailers are widespread and gardening/furniture shops provide them either for free or for a very low price.
Canadian here who drives a truck in the snowy mountain roads, I'm pretty confused by this. Why do you say they are not good? There is nothing I'd rather be in than an F350 with studded tires and four-wheel drive on the highway when the road conditions go bad.
But there is another problem with trucks. It rains a lot in Norway especially on the west coast and in mountains. And it really sucks to load-transport-unload without the roof under the rain. Most trailers here are with the roof for this reason.
On your last point, are truck canopies not common in Norway? Something like this: https://canopy-world.com/
Canopies are really rare. What is typical is vans or cargo vans in all sizes. That is, something with a roof and front-wheel drive. As roads here are good, there is little point in high-rised cars. And on icy roads or with snow good winter tires are much more important than 4WD.
Minimal maintenance, largely stored sitting idle, no cleaning required. You don't even need to unethically deem your workers as contractors.
Trailers have a capacity advantage though. Sometimes the shit you're moving simply won't fit in a large pickup truck. In those cases though, having a truck with sufficient power to tow that trailer is still handy...
The only thing you need is practice. The next time you use a trailer, take it to a big WalMart parking lot during a slow time and play around with it a little bit. You'll get a feel for where the "fulcrum" is, and start using your mirrors to steer. This isn't an impossible task. All the semi truck drivers you see on the road have to get really good at this in order to pass their CDL, and lots of them never backed up a trailer before they took the course.
My main point though is mass market trailer rental to the general public will probably never be very popular. Most people have never attempted to back up a trailer before and at least the first few times they attempt it the chance they'll jackknife it is pretty high.
But backing up! Its like pushing a rope. And I had to get the rear of the wagon within 1ft of the target - an old tire with a grain auger's business end in it, so I could unload.
Yes, every time I park it. It is much easier to learn how to back with a trailer than to learn how to drive
Sheet materials and long materials up there no problem, everything else in the boot.
https://www.harborfreight.com/1195-lbs-capacity-48-in-x-96-i...
At $350, not having to share a utility trailer with careless drivers seems quite attainable.
The light trucks have BUMPERS that actually work; so, can bump into something, push another truck, maybe by accident hit a deer some night, all with little or no damage. With no bumpers, lots of little bumps would need $1000+ for body repairs.
So, as a result, light trucks are functional, rugged, and comparatively simple and easy to maintain. I.e., light trucks get rid of the nonsense luxury stuff I don't need, can't use, don't like, don't want, don't want to pay more for when I buy, and most of all don't want the cost and Excedrin headache #498,293,991 of maintenance.
These trucks are much the same year after year, aren't "all new", and, thus, have a lot of the bugs, design errors, bad corrosion problems, and bad part kinks worked out. As soon as a seller claims "all new" I'll have to conclude the seller had a lot of problems with their models for the last several years and walk out saying "Maybe I'll see you again in 10 years.". "All new" may be good for Paris fashions, but I don't want it in a vehicle.
These trucks have solid rear axles, usually with stiff leaf springs -- that is, RUGGED with no problems with alignment, weak bushings, etc.
I like Ford and Chevy because they are made with parts readily available, from Ford, Chevy, or third parties, all over the US at relatively low prices now and for decades into the future, use English wrench sizes, and are well understood by a huge fraction of US mechanics.
My next vehicle will be a light truck from Ford or Chevy even though I will rarely make good use of the bed in the back.
For a vehicle I want a solid, mechanical tool, functional, rugged, durable, easy to maintain. As soon as a seller mentions luxury, I'm gone. Yup, like Jay Leno, I like blue jeans, too.
Typically can get a list of the possible options and dealer's price for each, develop a list of just what want with the dealer's cost, and then take an afternoon and do a search for a dealer who will give you the best price. Start with offers a bit below dealer's cost, try all the dealers, increase by maybe $100 and iterate. Or, maybe a little faster, try a binary search.
Then pay them a small amount and have them place the order, wait about six weeks, and then get what you wanted. I did just this for the last four new cars I bought -- worked fine.
Of those four, I got two muscle cars, a high performance luxury car, and an SUV. The SUV is my favorite. NO MORE luxury cars. Next time, a light truck.
And I've never understood the appeal of SUVs. For under half the price you can get a Dodge Caravan that will actually hold a full sheet of plywood.
Agree. I was saying why a Ford 150 is called a light truck, right, because the 350, etc. are larger.
> And I've never understood the appeal of SUVs. For under half the price you can get a Dodge Caravan that will actually hold a full sheet of plywood.
The SUV I bought was a Chevy Blazer. At the time on the same chassis there was a pickup version. I hoped that it would be more rugged than a passenger car. Partly it has been. I wish it had been still more rugged and done a LOT better on corrosion protection.
It will be curious to see how all the brands stack up corrosion wise in the next few years.
I guess GM couldn’t stomach using an aluminum bed after the 2016 ad campaign against ford.
For a steel bed, get something to protect against corrosion, and for an aluminum bed get something to protect the aluminum if it is too soft.
As a tangent, if you go far enough out in the wilderness, having a truck makes some sense. You might have to drive a couple hours to the nearest store in some remote parts of the US that I've visited, and I can't imagine making the trip more than a couple times a month at most- and you may have to haul a load up and down several (potentially icy) mountains. However, I don't think that's why most people own trucks. It's a fashion thing, the same reason people drive most other $50k cars around.
Why? Because it is a symbol of masculinity in the South and many men would never ever drive a car. Their grandfather had a truck, father had a truck, and they were given a truck as their first vehicle. It would have made sense for the grandparent on the farm, but if you sit in front of a computer 8 hours a day and live in a suburban neighborhood...you probably don't need a truck.
With that being said, there are folks down here that still need trucks for work and recreational activities like hunting and towing a boat.
And just because a Corolla can technically tow 1500 lb doesn't mean it does it well. In my experience Corollas do not tow well. The combination of small engine and relatively high gearing means that it's not really suitable. You really need at least a 2 L engine for towing.
That's not to mention all the other stuff you end up carrying around for the boat, such as fuel, tools, life jackets, etc.
...
With that being said, if you try to tow a boat with a corolla, you’re practically sentencing the poor thing to transmission trouble and differential difficulties. I’d say that you’d be lucky to get a boat from driveway to launch ramp 3 separate trips before the transmission fails. All of that is assuming you can find someone to frame weld a tow hitch for a boat to the corolla.
The kernel of truth in that: stores are required to charge for bags here (East Bay outside of SF). We have a bag of shopping bags - the “meta bag” - in our trunk so that we always have plenty available.
Bought it used, around $20K with 4 years / 80K miles on it. Lined the bed, replaced the transfer case motor and voila a pretty good truck that looks good!
The $90/tank is because its a 36 gallon tank. Range around 600 miles full. With every advantage on the highway I've gotten > 20mpg but that's rare.
Can fit a lot in my hatchback and would just do what they do in New Zealand on the odd occasion I need more; rent a truck or van for the day.
My coworker dropped the phrase "Texas Cadillac" the other day. Couldn't cringe hard enough.
I hope to be able to afford an electric car for my next car purchase - for now, just a tiny Mazda stick-shift.
Kinda having second thoughts after reading that comment about battery production though...
Chelsea is a very fancy area of London. The kind of place Prince Harry went to party.
Do we even have malls anymore?
I can't use that term in the same way ever again, fwiw.
Curious, I reasearched this. While that was indeed one use of the term (especially re: the West Virginia mine war in 1921), the etymology for the term as we use it is from 1900ish, 20 years earlier. And it refers, more generally, to farmers and working class folk whose necks would be red from sunburn (wikipedia, well cited in the article on redneck).
Stereotyping rural or working class or poor people using the term "redneck" is bad in its own right, but I dont think it originates from the strike of a coal miner's union. But thanks for leading me to do some research, it was interesting!
Much of my family is made up of these people. And to a person they call themselves… rednecks.
I didnt see anyone do that. I saw someone on a website complain about the price of gas to fill their truck, and someone else ask them if they considered driving something other than a truck.
(honestly, "do you NEED the truck?" is a very good question. I drive a Yaris to construction sites. Wouldn't work for every job, but everyone else in my position drives a truck. It's an important question to consider.)
And honestly, NEED is a dumb question. You can ask do you NEED just about anything. No, it’s not strictly a need, and neither is anything else nerds regularly spend their money on. All of what we buy lands somewhere on a spectrum of Need-Convenient-Frivolous, and people who don’t buy something are not going to make the same assessment as people who do.
A car owner saying that a truck owner doesn’t need a truck because they get by fine without one is like a bike owner saying that a car owner doesn’t need a car because they get by fine without one.
A more accurate comparison would be: Apple Owner A complains about the price of apple products, Person B comes along and asks if said person has considered if they NEED an apple product. Totally reasonable. It's the initial complaint (about the cost!!!) that makes the question acceptable. Many people don't TRULY consider needs (as you rightly point out, it's a spectrum from need to frivolous). If you consider it and decide you do actually need the truck (or the apple product, or whatever) then that's totally fine. (well, tragedy of the commons global warming stuff excepted, but that's a society-level problem).
Silicon Valley - I mean HN - won't know what to do with itself when most trucks go electric.
trucks going electric will be great for the same reason every vehicle going electric is great - it reduces dependence on fossil fuels, it reduces carbon dioxide emissions, it makes the outlook for the future less of a defeating thing!
(Also, we're only a small part of the world, it needs to bleed into every other market, too)
Nobody is concerned about the countries (e.g. Bolivia) involved to extract the materials needed for the batteries => this might kill them (on one hand I agree saying "they should be able to care for themselves", but on the other hand there are gigantic interests at play which will put huge pressure on their governments/politicians) => whoever buys a battery nowadays should think twice about its environmentally-friendliness?
Ideally, we don't want to re-play the oil-wars, in a different theatre? Hopefully not?
If you have a less harmful solution than EVs to transitioning to fossil-fuel-free transportation I hear it's quite a lucrative opportunity.
In my personal case I did invest something into a cobalt mine in Idaho because they're doing everything right from my point of view - but I agree that this might not be a selling point if people do not become aware of what's happening (as well far away).
It's a very poor country.