Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

I’m positively in love with this romantic idea that my vehicle isn’t really just about A to B. It’s my aircraft carrier from which I launch operations.

It keeps us warm or cold. Powers everything. Has entertainment. Shelter. Carries all my supplies. Having a small SUV in the parking lot of the beach turns my morning trip into a whole day trip with my toddlers napping and taking a break in the shade.

It’s what gets me about the supercarriers. If warfare suddenly disappeared, you’ve got these mobile bases you can anchor off the coast of a disaster zone with massive capabilities for logistics, a nuclear power plant, water purifier, hospital, machine shops, etc. Etc.

So this F150 power generator thing resonates with me.

View on HN

If you want a base of operation, a SUV is not what you're looking for. An expedition vehicle is. That's literally what they're built and set up for.

A "supercarrier" would be a lorry-sized one e.g. a monster like an EX70-HDQ[0]. A smaller BOO would be something like a maximog or a rally vehicle. There are also conversions for SUV-size chassis replacing the entire back half.

[0] https://www.unicat.net/en/info/EX70HDQ-MANTGA6x6.php

That seems like overkill for a day at the beach.

A F-150 is also overkill for a day at the beach.

Have you ever owned a full-size pickup? They really are nice. Still, they are too wasteful to be a good choice with our current environmental issues.

I drive one every day that is owned by my employer and I'm amazed how many people fork over $50,000 plus the higher running costs just to utilize the truck features once or twice a year, if that.

You can rent a truck for a day when you need it and save a lot of money and emissions.

Absolutely. If you're not using your truck for truck stuff at least twice a month, it doesn't make sense.

And unless you're using it more frequently than that, only a fuel efficient medium / small one makes sense.

(Possible exception: infrequent long-haul towing for extended trips)

snowplow. Really nothing like it for clearing a lot of snow on a gravel road that is hilly.

Space is also an issue. Try fitting a rear facing car seat into a crew cab Tacoma.

The space thing is why I've always punted and bought full sized vans. Downside very limited availability of AWD or 4X4 vans in the US. Yes you can pay through the nose for an after market one.

I went the full size truck route because of the offroad capabilities and the ability to transport things in the bed (with shell) that you wouldn’t necessarily want in the cabin: second battery, porta potty, propane tank, jerry cans, fridge, ...

Right. I read somewhere a comment that you can go to Europe and (possibly exaggerated for emphasis) see Audi station wagons towing horse trailers at 100mph on the freeway.

Here, you have someone who might move their single horse from summer pasture to winter pasture, and as a result, thinks that they "have" to have a HD3500 "dually".

There are a few things that contribute to this oddity (never using light vehicles to tow in the US)...

Speed limits. Americans generally refuse to slow down when towing. In most of western Europe, the speed limit is 20mph lower (give or take) when towing. In order to tow at a high speeds while maintaining stability, you need a long wheelbase and mass.

Liability and fear of lawsuits. My 2017 VW Sportwagen is rated to tow 2000lbs in the EU. It isn't rated to tow AT ALL in the US. There are no mechanical differences that would impact the tow rating. If a consumer wants a vehicle rated to tow, they literally can't use a mid-size sedan or wagon in the US (despite the exact same vehicle being able to tow a small travel trailer, horse, or small powerboat without problem).

Volvo never played this game. The tow rating for small sedans in the US is as high as in Europe. While I don't max it out or come even close to the limit, I hauled plenty of loads with a small S60 and a Featherlite aluminium trailer.

Any differences in regulation w.r.t towing capacity between the US and EU?

It's been a few years since I last looked into it, but my recollection is that in Europe (or at least the UK) it is normal to balance the trailer to put less tongue weight on the hitch, which means you can tow a heavier trailer but have less stability at highway speeds (which they compensate for by having lower speed limits when towing). In the US typical trailer loading guidelines recommend putting more of the weight forward of the axle(s) for more tongue weight, which usually means the trailer will not sway even at speeds in excess of what the trailer tires are rated for.

In practice, a vehicle's safe towing capacity is usually not limited by the engine or drivetrain, but by the ability to stop the trailer safely. Brakes on the trailer itself help, but the big problem is that hard braking shifts more weight forward onto the hitch (trailer dive) and tends to lever the front wheels of the tow vehicle up, reducing their braking ability and in extreme cases eliminates your ability to steer while braking. A weight-distributing hitch counteracts this, but in the US light passenger vehicles are seldom rated for use with such a hitch. Towing at a lower speed also somewhat reduces this danger, by quadratically reducing the kinetic energy you need to shed in an emergency stop.

All countries in Europe except Germany have a general speed limit, most around 80mph. Towing a trailer has even lower speed limits, for example in Germany the max legal speed while towing a trailer of any size is 50mph, even on the Autobahn.

This in combination with beefier rear frames on euro car models (and no truck sales this would cannibalize) results in a higher towing capacity rating. It is much more common to have a utility trailer for the 3-4 times a year you would need it.

In reality people go up to 60-65mph with a decent trailer, that is about 100km/h.

In Denmark and Germany at least general trailer combos limit you to 80km/h, but newer combos can be approved for 100.

Not using your vehicles to the limit of it's capacity is one of the ways your signal that you're upper middle class.

Think of the stereotypes that plywood falling out of the bed of a 2010 Tacoma evokes vs the stereotypes that plywood strapped to the roof of a 2010 Crown Victoria evokes.

Do you mean OSB?

I meant plywood but you could substitute in OSB or any other construction material and the meaning of the example doesn't change.

Large sedans or SWs towing trailers or caravans is completely normal in Europe. TIL that’s not the case in the US.

100 mph is… not likely though.

I’ve been overtaken by a horsetailer doing a bit over 100mph. I do believe it was a Porsche suv doing the pulling tho. This was in Denmark. Back when I was young and reckless my old Peugeot sedan was pretty stable doing around that speed with a flatbed dual axle trailer.

The horse trailer probably didn't contain a horse at the time. They're very useful for hauling all sorts of things, most of which are lighter than horses.

I just bought one for offroad travel on weekends and maybe some overlanding. It’s completely impossible to rent a capable offroad rig for multi day trips and buying one is really the only option.

>I'm amazed how many people fork over $50,000

Obligatory Money Mustache article:

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-wo...

The week after I bought my odyssey I stuffed a 1500 pound playset into it and took it home. Huge cargo space. We've beaten the crap out of it for 7 years without a single hiccup. Still in great shape.

I had a coworker who daily drove a dodge caravan. If anyone gave him crap about it, this was pretty much the answer he gave. He was especially proud that a full size sheet of plywood could lay flat in the back.

Buying anything other than a minimal sedan, minivan, or small suv goes beyond practicality and into emotionality for most people. I don't see a big difference between owning a uselessly oversized truck, a luxury sedan, or a sports car. They are all bad for your wallet, and bad for the environment. I think that trucks are exceptional because people who can't afford them convince themselves that they "need" them.

Not our issues, the next generation’s issues.

Environmental issues are one thing, your own situation, needs, comfort and enjoyment are other factors.

Individually it won't make much of a difference, if it's about climate change or CO2 reduction you need a national plan and billions of investments in e.g. getting rid of coal power or discouraging energy waste on e.g. bitcoin.

Climate problems won’t be addressed with this attitude. Everyone needs to do their part, both at the ballot box, and in their personal lives.

And where does one park that?

Anywhere you want.

On top of those pesky pickup trucks.

If this piques anyone's interest check out Expedition Portal: https://www.expeditionportal.com/

I'm going to be building one based off an LMTV as soon as I can find a place to do it.

> peaks anyone's interest

Minor: piques anyone's interest.

Corrected thanks

I mean, my interest is certainly peaked, too.

Only if it's about to decrease!

Just Don't do it in California because you'll find out you can't register your LMTV in this state....

Absolutely. CA is the last state I'd want to live in or register it in.

Domiciling in CA when you plan to live on the road in other states is monumentally tax inefficient.

Both inefficient from an "amount of tax you pay" perspective and a "the amount of good each dollar of your taxes paid does" perspective.

I've heard you just need to register it as an RV (and actually have a permanent box on the back) if you want your LMTV to be registered without the annual commercial fees. Is that not true anymore?

Yes that still works in California, can also do it to a big rig if you want to.

I'm not a fan of the "overland" builds based on LMTV and other medium duty truck chassis platforms. They're really the "worst of both worlds". A tiny RV on a mostly shitty off-road platform that gets horrible mileage. I say mostly shitty because they are huge and not nimble and really not suited for anything worse than a rough dirt road. Way too big for actual long distance off-pavement travel in places like Utah, where the corners are tight and trails are narrow. They also tear the crap out of the dirt roads. I'm not a fan.

I drive a Land Rover Defender 110 and camp in the back of it. If I was looking for something for long-term camping, or to take a family, I would just buy fifth wheel trailer and pull it behind my Ram 2500, where I have a reliable and strong Cummins turbo diesel.

I've been living in my converted 26ft (7.8m) bus for 3 years. I know what it's like having a large vehicle. A fifth wheel can't go where I want to go. A Defender is too small for me to live in full time, plus they cost 4-7 times what I paid for my LMTV.

Every option is about trade offs. For my use an LMTV makes sense.

Or for a lot less money just get a motorhome.

My 32' Winnebago sleeps me, wife, kids and dogs has a 4000w generator and 3000w inverter which runs off two golf cart batteries charged by shore, generator, alternator and 300w of solar.

It has 80 gallons of gas, 70 gallons of water, air conditioning, and giant awning and tons of storage. I carry just about all my tools.

It even has a built in desk in the passenger side dash which I can work remote from using the hotspot / router with external antenna.

I driven cross country multiple times towing my Jeep and taken it pretty far off the grid. Its not an off-road vehicle but you would be surprised.

There are a lot of choices in between mine and a Unicat as well, like a 4x4 Class B or Super C. Some of them are starting to do large 48v secondary alternators with lithium banks and no generator while still being able to run the A/C for up to 8 hours before recharging.

Hey quick question, what's your goto RV forum/community? Just looking at getting into it this year and planning to rent one about that size for a couple of weeks in August.

http://irv2.com its definitely an older crowd but thats changing somewhat, tons of good info going back many years.

https://www.rvmobileinternet.com for cellular / internet connectivity.

Awesome thank you!!!

The problem with RVs (as someone who spent most of last year on the road living in one) is that they are built like garbage, with the poorest quality materials and zero innovation. It is clear that no one has shaken up that industry in decades and the incumbents are lazy. The distribution chain has fat profits for everyone. Huge opportunity for someone to disrupt.

I agree, but a lot of enjoyment can still be had with one. My Winnebago cost about as much as a Model X but the places I have gone, the things I have seen...

Its actually very hard to travel by normal car or air now, we just like taking the RV, the space, bathroom and kitchen while driving down the road, our own bed...

You really do need to be handy to own one at this point, it's like a 70's American car. Well the engine and transmission and chassis is fine but everything around it, wow. Luckily it is easy to work on and modify.

I have thought long and hard about trying to start a "Toyota of RVs", I think if you could make a solid, simple well made RV you could dominate the market.

The closest to a “Toyota of RVs” is probably the Erwin Hymer Group, which is expected to finally - after 5+ years of false starts - bring some products to the US in the next 2-3 years: https://newatlas.com/automotive/hymer-usa-european-designed-...

(Many in the US have never heard of Hymer even though they’re huge in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymer. They’re now owned by Thor, which owns Airstream, Jayco, and many other RV companies: https://www.thorindustries.com/brands)

Good to investigate in uk

Hymer North America went bankrupt due various finial "irregularities". I believe what was left was bought by Thor. Left a lot of people out in the cold on warranties from my understanding.

If you want quality look at https://advanced-rv.com, not cheap.

Thor planned to acquire Hymer Europe and NA, but discovered the fraud during due diligence and elected not to acquire the NA business (a lot of which was Roadtrek). Thor/Hymer Europe has formed a new US entity for new products. Most of the high-volume brands are a notch down from there.

I agree about Advanced. A notch down would be Safari Condo’s XL Flex and Leisure Travel Vans.

Do you think you're missing something by not being "part" of the environment while driving? As in, you drive through instead of "drive in"? I only drive with the windows down because I want to be a part of the landscape I'm in. I think a motorcycle is the ultimate crystallization of that.

On the hand, if it convincs you make trips you otherwise wouldn't have made, I think it's a win. I love Road tripping because it forces you to deal with stuff, especially if you're doing it in less developed countries. Probably the most fun I've ever had is driving long distance in Africa. You really never know what's going to happen next!

Never understood this fascination with "crapping in the woods" so to speak. We have evolved past not having to do that yet some want to find their way back to the same old for some reason.

In the end, this seems like different goals - some just want to enjoy nature but not live in any delusion that we need to be more paleolithic to have the most authentic experience, others crave this process more than the end location. I identify more with the former group, and an RV sounds like a better bet for people like that.

I would be curious to know which is the least destructive to the places been to and the environment though. If the RV is worse, maybe that's one argument. But I'm not sure that makes sense - someone who stays in the hotel might end up costing more in resources maybe?

I'm not talking about capping in the woods, just needing other people for things is a great way to experience the world: having to go to a restaurant or store to get food, go to a motel to sleep, etc.

Like poor neighborhoods have so much more community than rich ones because people genuinely need each other to get by. When you're completely independent and don't need anyone, I think you've lost one of the things that gives life its value.

That's fair, but I would wager that countries where RVs make sense (US mainly) is a disjoint set from countries where you have a rich community that's also affordable. If I'm traveling the states by a motorcycle or car I'm stuck with having my meals often at a subway and staying in a super 8 (assuming you're middle class).

I feel the opposite, I have never seen as much of the landscape as through the giant window in my RV while driving. Its one thing I look forward to is just the drive and the stuff seen along the way while having all the normal conveniences.

Also towing a Jeep with us makes a huge difference being able to really explore anywhere around where we are staying and see the sights. I really love Colorado and a Jeep is the way to really see it.

If I was single I might have a smaller RV with just a motorcycle, but with the whole family this setup is perfect, and it seems like kids have really got a lot out of it, they frequently talk about the places we been in the RV and love traveling in it.

I have a 20 year old conversion van. Lot of space if just two people. And you get a good bed and not have to deal with sleeping on the ground or tents. Have a secondary battery which runs an Engel cooler and a small microwave.

Downside: No bathroom, shower, stove, etc.

Upside: No plumbing to maintain. Lot smaller than an RV.

C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate?

I don't think so. More like the "Weltraumputze" [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/mediaviewer/rm357719449... at [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/mediaviewer/rm394629324... from there [3] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/mediaviewer/rm285577420... or there [4] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/mediaviewer /rm3862407169

Right? [5] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/mediaviewer/rm150543104...

You get what you pay for.

Class A diesel RVs are designed for retired couples to drive around the country and live quite well. They plummet in price the first few years and if you're past 10 years old (usually harder to get a loan), the price drops more, often to 25% or less of the new price.

They have pretty beefy systems, with 7kw diesel generators quite common. The engine and chassis will be designed to flat tow a car (or a huge trailer).

And some have pretty interesting features, like tile floors, two bathrooms, in-floor heating, two bathrooms and washer/dryers.

but yeah, choose a good brand.

Yeah sorta, its amazing how bad the QA is even on expensive motorhomes. If you are used to buying a reliable modern car you will be in for a shock when purchasing even a high end RV when it comes to the quality and integration.

Yeah, one of my friends just bought a brand new RV (I don't know the details), but spent basically a month after purchase getting a whole bunch of QA fixes made, from the minor and cosmetic to fairly major.

Get a class C that's built on an off the shelf truck chassis (usually Mercedes Sprinter or Ford E-350/450) and at least the chassis will be reliable. You'll still have to deal with problems with the RV parts but at least you'll be able to drive it (unless your problem is that the slide-out won't retract)

I agree with this statement and I should have been clearer previously. When I complain about build quality and lack of innovation, it is solely with respect to what the RV assembler does with the Mercedes or Ford chassis.

it's better to build on a spartan or freightliner chassis

It all depends on whether it's a class-C type cutaway where the cab is built by the chassis manufacturer (so you get a steel cab plus airbags and other safety features), or a class-A built on a stripped chassis where everything but the frame and engine comes from the RV manufacturer -- many of those are essentially a lightweight box on top of the frame and will disintegrate in a crash, and you'll likely not survive a rollover crash. Even with a cutaway chassis, depending on how much of the cab they cutover for cab access, you may not fare too well, but much better than with nothing but a wood and fiberglass box surrounding you.

With a cutaway, the manufacturer takes care of all of the steering linkages, driving controls, etc so you have some assurance of quality -- everything related to driving is built by the company with the most experience in building trucks and cars rather than the RV manufacturer.

I don't know what you get in the $300K+ Newmars and other expensive rigs since that's way out of my (and most people's) price range.

In Canada a Class A brand new can be $400k+. A 10 year old Class A at 25% of the price is still a $100k vehicle. And because they are built like garbage, the repairs start adding up.

I am convinced that if you do the math, it makes more sense for the couple months a year a retired couple will travel to just buy a nice vehicle and do AirBNBs and have no compromise in terms of Shower length, amount of hot water, and other amenities.

Also, don’t get me started on the cost of fuel relative to a normal vehicle. Their fuel economy is abysmal. Think: Russian Tank.

If you just do the math, yeah, buy a fuel efficient travel vehicle and do hotels / cabins / Airbnb.

Just not for me, have done plenty of that and I like my RV better. I can drive 8 hours straight with the kids no stops to a great state park and be chilling by 3pm do it again the next day all the way across the country sleeping in my own bed.

Yes its horrible mileage, I mean I am dragging my whole house with me, but thats what makes it nice too. Its not for everyone but if you like the whole "super-carrier" thing you probably will like it.

I can tell you, you are rather an exception in this mindset.

There are tons of drawbacks in reality compared to romantic idea of 'dragging your whole home with you'. Financially it doesn't make sense. You become a slave of your motor home. It drives like shit.

But far worst for me is, you create your own bubble. You travel, yet want to keep your cozy 'home'. That's completely opposite to why I travel - experience unique, vastly different, exotic places, interact with strangers, other cultures, eat local food etc. Dive deep into the place. This is much more interesting goal of traveling compared to just 'seeing places and staying comfortable'.

You might think we're comparing uncomparable - cruising around rather homogeneous US vs traveling i say South east Asia. Not at all - here in Europe we have such a diversity of cultures that those 'exotic' experiences can be had quite easily with few hundred kms of drive. South is nothing like north, east vs west the same. Every country is pretty unique.

I agree a big RV seems like a US thing and the kind of travel you are talking about appealed to me more when I was younger, but with a family and kids its really nice to go explore during the day and go by to our bubble at night and move on to the next place.

We have seen a lot of diverse stuff in the US and financially, well traveling for pleasure doesn't really make sense, its worth it to me so far.

I did do a good amount of work to make my RV drive better, again if someone could make a simple well made RV I think the demand would be high, its really nice way to travel and see the US.

> In Canada a Class A brand new can be $400k+. A 10 year old Class A at 25% of the price is still a $100k vehicle.

Yes, they can also be $125k. Your AirBNB option can also cost $4,000/night. Picking a price toward the top of the line does not make for a good argument.

And yes, mileage is not great, but it’s not as bad as a tank - a Class A diesel can easily get 8-9 MPG without trying, and a bit of care can get you to see 10-12.

Your point is well taken, though are there actually Class A RVs that, brand new, cost $125k?

Yes. In the US you can find brand new 29’ Class A RVs for less than half that, but quality is relative with price paid (aka, it’ll be cheap crap).

They're built like crap because they have to be lightweight and affordable.

They are not lightweight. In the case of many Class C motorhomes build on the Ford E chassis, the manufacturer has used plywood for everything. There are certainly opportunities to build with marginally more expensive materials to make major weight gains.

For the uninitiated, what materials are we talking about here?

The plywood mentioned by GP is kind of heavy, and it needs framing for stiffness too. The molded steel used in "real" cars and trucks would be lighter. So would something handmade from carbon. Just thinking by analogy with boat hulls, I don't see why fiberglass wouldn't work either. My parents have a pickup camper the walls of which are made from Styrofoam or something similar. This seems to work; I can climb on the roof to adjust the antenna and I'm fat.

Drawback, they are big. Frankly since I don't have a family I'd rather have the truck with the generator and set up my hammock or tent rather than the RV. I can still use the truck as a utility vehicle to do all my hobby projects and use it like I would an RV. With a RV I need another vehicle. (I'm also sure I could rig a solar panel "roof" to the truck for extended trips).

Look at Class B van conversion, the Winnebago Revel is what I would have if single / no kids, I have seen people using as daily driver.

That is pretty neat. But at the same time, I have to say that a F150 is a lot smaller than that. Also, having a truck bed is pretty darn useful if you like to build stuff.

Holy fuck, $174k?!? How well do these hold value and much does it cost to maintain? If it's $30k in the first year, that's approximately the cost of an Airbnb every single night.

$174k is bonkers for that RV. It's a converted Mercedes Sprinter, which has a list price of about $60k (4x4, diesel, long wheelbase, high roof, with a reasonable set of options).

I find it hard to believe Winneago adds $110k of value to the van.

FWIW, if you want a camper van (and not a full RV), Metris conversions are a solid option. PeaceVans (Seattle) has two nice builds - a weekender (bed, pop top, no kitchen nor bath) or a camper (bed, pop top, kitchen, no bath). About $65k for the former and $85 for the latter. Using one of these (or a 40-year old VW Westfalia) limits you to campsites with toilets (or roughing it a bit). The Weekender build is available through your local M-B dealer (via an official up-fitter arrangement).

You have to remember MSRP on an RV is about 30% higher than you would actually pay, its more like 120k new.

You can definitely build your own, many people do, there is a lot of work put into these thing and yes Winnebago makes a profit to do it for you. They are by no means ripping anyone off, good luck finding a 4x4 sprinter Class B for any less brand new. Good luck finding a 4x4 sprinter shell to convert, they are in demand.

Rebel provides good value if you consider most #VanLifers retrofit their stripped Sprinters with an additional 3,000lbs of plywood and another 200lbs of subway tile backsplash. Have fun with that fuel economy!

There is nothing innovative about working with aluminum. As a technically proficient person with a shop I would be reluctant to make full cabinetry and bed frames out of the material because things are just trickier compared to wood.

Savvy of Winnebago to pivot their decades of experience in making things light to a new generation.

Revels have been in crazy demand, and then COVID-19 elevated all RV prices on top of that.

2-6 year old class B's (vans) usually sell in the 40-80k range, depending on the details.

I took our 21" class B motorhome to the hardware store and to get groceries today. It works perfectly fine as a daily driver -- it's a van, after all. Sleeps 2, has kitchen, bathroom, shower, ...

Did you buy your RV new with all of those features or did you customize yourself? What model did you end up going with?

I added the inverter, solar and cellular antenna and router.

Coach motorhomes are kind of an idiot trap. You're better off with a tow vehicle and fifth wheel. The mileage is better, and you can unhitch and run day trips without having to lift your jacks and unplug everything every single day, then come home and do it all over again every single day. A lot of people end up dragging a car behind their motorhome as a result, when you could just do a fifth wheel and a truck instead and end up with a much easier rig to manage.

The sprinter type campervan setups are a little more practical but obviously trade for space.

I have no need for a pickup, so I'm better served by a 25 foot RV than an 18 foot truck plus a 25 foot fifth wheel. Plus I'd have to find parking for 2 vehicles that don't fit in my garage, while with the RV I need just one space.

It's debatable whether the truck+trailer is easier to manage than the RV + small car. Though since we tend to take the RV to state parks and such where we don't need to drive after we park, we rarely take the car.

Everyone has different needs, but having owned pretty much every type of RV available, I'd say a truck with a fifth-wheel is much easier to mange than a coach with a flat-tow car.

A fifth-wheel is easy to backup when needed. A coach with a flat-tow car attached can't back up at all.

And as long as you have enough truck for the size fifth-wheel you have they tow much better in wind and handle curvy roads well.

While it's true that you can't back up with a towed vehicle, the advantage of the RV is that you don't have to -- only takes a few minutes to pull the pins and free the car and generally when I'm towing the car, I want to use it, so I'm going to unhook it anyway when I park, may as well unhook it before I back in the space (especially since I typically want to back in all the way and put the car in front)

But as you say, different use cases for different people - if you already have or want a truck (or other tow vehicle), a towed RV makes a lot more sense. But I don't want a daily driver that's large enough to be a tow vehicle and it makes no sense to buy a tow vehicle that's only used for towing.

I second this. The thing that really turns me off about a motorhome is having this drive train that you only use maybe a dozen times a year but that you want to trust to take your family on a long trip. I'd much rather put that trust (and maintenance expense) in a regularly driven pickup.

Plus when the trailer falls apart, which they all do because they're built like crap, you can just replace it independent of the pickup.

And of top of that you have another engine to maintain.

But fifth wheel is an overkill for most:

For most of them you need F-250/350 instead of F-150. F-250 doesn’t drive as nice as F-150 when unloaded. Preferably you need long bed (not to hit the cab when backing up). With the crew cab this is the longest truck possible. Modern diesels are expensive to run and maintain, 7.3L Godzilla just shipped, you want to give it couple years to get proven...

Then fifth wheel is harder to hitch up and you loose huge portion of bed space. Also bed is nearly impossible to access when hitched up.

Basically, unless you really need the space, go with 25-30ft trailer and F-150 (with 6 1/2ft bed of course, not this short nonsense).

This is an endless debate among RVers, its personal preference.

I can tell you its really nice having the RV be usable down the road for the bathroom and the space.

I tow a 4 door Jeep which is actually much better for getting around and exploring once we are at our destination than a full size truck due it its smaller size and off-road capability.

Check out "Captain Fantastic" with Viggo Mortensen. A pretty good road movie where he uses an old school bus as a motor home for his hippy family.

Looks nice. I didn't see a price there, but this second-hand smaller one from 2006 is EUR 350k (USD 390k). Might get a second hand boat and plane instead.

https://www.unicat.net/en/info/TC51hallround-MANLE142804x4CC...

You can find ex-military vehicles on eBay for pretty cheap in Europe. The problem is here you will need a C1 or C driving license if the vehicle is over 3500kg (7700lb) so the resale values are quite low. And I don't want to guess how much insurance will be.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/174331257027

Obviously, the above commenter just needs an actual supercarrier... Which is to say, an F-150 with a generator is about as big of a base of operations you can get that mostly fits in a parking spot.

If I'm taking a mobile home or... that thing... somewhere, it's generally a planned event. Whereas my "mobile base of operations" should be something that's always with me during my day-to-day, but also has a significant amount of resources I might need.

[drool]

Don't know why, but I've always loved cabover trucks.

I once passed one of these coming the other way on a very thin dirt road in the middle Argentina during the Dakar Rally. It was quite the surprise.

Let's just say opinions differ here. I'm very much not in love with the idea of everyone driving around in massive cars. They take up huge amounts of space, belch out pollution, and are much more likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists when involved in collisions.

I hate SUVs with passion. Here in Europe, for long time we basically didn't have any (unless you really go to rough terrain, which 95% of SUVs here never do). Apart from football stars, eastern mafia guys and soccer moms.

It became kind of fashion thingie for those who don't understand cars, or basic physics. Soccer moms love them, since they often don't have good driving skills, it puts them higher so they have better overview of the road (while blocking any view of those behind). Pollution, higher maintenance costs, much higher danger of car rolling during accident (and break your neck) be damned.

Then there is category of these tiny 'SUV' (I think proper term is crossover), which are just bigger shopping carts, being a higher above ground. So from driving perspective, the worst combination - small, badly maneuverable car.

We still have big wagons for those who are numerous / carry around a lot of things. These I prefer - they drive well, trunk space is enormous. Compared to most SUV which look big on the outside, but not so much inside.

/rant

So what do you use to bring your two softball playing girls to an 11 game weekend tournament? That you’re also coaching. And providing hydration for. And shade. And chairs, food, etc. Plus your wife and your 7 year old son. What do you use to take the same crew camping for 4-7 days at a time? I use the ever loving shit out of my vehicles. Keep that euro centric view of “not using big things” in Europe. Thanks!

I believe a station wagon was the suggested alternative. Love the attitude though :P.

Find me a station wagon that will take me on the rubicon. Until then I’ll keep my land cruiser.

Weekend tournament?

We used to pack up our 5 member family and suitcases for 3 weeks at the seaside into a 2. generation Voklswagen Golf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk2

Us and every other family. I suppose the average american uses a 18-wheel cargo truck to go to vacation.

“At the seaside” so I guess you just bought coaching equipment when you got there, along with about 100 cold bottles of water. Got it.

Cars can have trailers, roof racks, and people can rent large cars for the short duration they need them. Breathless one-upmanship aside it’s not unreasonable to go to places with water, or for multiple people to bring water.

They literally won’t let us use water fountains right now. That’s for our own good. Wouldn’t want us getting the COVID!

bit strange to arrange a tournament in a place with no taps and no shops, but ok;

“On average, a professional water delivery service will charge anywhere from $175 to $380 per truckload., and the average truck will hold 6,000 gallons.” - https://www.howmuchisit.org/pool-water-delivery-cost/

Could buy a lot of those for the price of an SUV, especially sharing the price between all the people.

Inb4 the tournament is held on a remote mountain top inaccessible to tankers and hatchbacks alike and only accessible to 4x4s so there’s literally no other choice.

100 bottles? Are you coaching in the middle of the desert for a week? That's 20 bottles per person...

I coach a team of twelve.

Reading that again I think our definitions are different. If you can pack for 3 weeks in the mountains in a VW Golf I’m honestly impressed. I have a feeling you rely on stores and dining out. I’m talking about what is now called “off grid camping”, what used to just be called “camping”. Yes, when I was 14 I could go into the Ozarks after school on Friday with just my brothers and our packs on our backs and make it until Sunday evening. Now I’m old and have the aches and pains of age, so I need more gear.

We used to do three weeks “off-grid” camping with a Volvo, no problem (assuming a roofrack as well for the tent). Nowadays we could probably do it without the roofrack as tents are considerably lighter than they used to be.

I've never done three weeks in the woods, but when my friends an I do one week "off grid" camping trips we are 4-5 adults plus food and gear per car (and none of my friends own anything larger than a midsize). We try to keep it 4 to a car for comfort, but we'd rather have a car of five than take an extra car.

I mean... a car? You aren't giving some outlandish requirements, all that stuff/passengers could fit into my compact sedan. I might need to get a roof rack for a trip, but that is much less costly than the massive difference in cost between buying/maintaining/operating/insuring an SUV vs a car.

Growing up my family of five were able to comfortably fit all of us plus any luggage/gear in an early 80s subcompact hatchback.

2 adults, 3 children, some drinks, some food, some foldable chairs, a tent or two?

That easily fits in most cars unless we're talking about Smart's or sports cars.

I dislike them too. You didn't mention that they also mostly diesel in Europe too. But I'm actually considering buying one (a petrol one).

For a start, SUVs don't go off road. They are road vehicles. We had off-roaders for a long time in the form of Land Rovers etc. We called them 4x4s and they weren't really comfortable to drive on the road.

I like the idea of having the right vehicle for the right purpose. If I had to travel to work by car (which I've done before and don't want to do again), I would like to drive a Mercedes "Smart" or VW Up, or similar. These are crap, consumable, plastic cars, but they do the job just fine. For the weekends? A sports car or hot hatch would be fun. For long trips and camping? An SUV would be great.

SUVs and the much higher number of HGVs now also tear up the roads, which isn't great for your sports car. You'll have a better chance in an SUV yourself. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The problem is that, in the UK at least, it's really only possible to run one car for various reasons (even if you could afford the depreciation on multiple cars). So the SUV becomes the default. Also I just want a reliable car. I don't want it to be a project and constant worry that my investment is going to fall apart. That means Honda or Toyota. But if I have to choose between the regular hatchback or SUV, I might as well go SUV because it will be more fun. There's the Civic Type-R. I owned one, but I don't really want one of the newer ones (I don't need 300+ bhp in a hatchback).

I've seen plenty of people assuming SUVs are off-roaders just because they tend to have similar shape and proportions, or some form of 4/all wheel drive that's in no way comparable to true off-road vehicles. The second confusion is that every car that seems a bit "bulged" is called a SUV in Europe. Even small CUVs like the Volvo X40 or Mazda CX-3. The fact that they are also called "crossover SUV" or CSUV definitely doesn't help anyone.

Unfortunately most people can't afford the "right vehicle for right purpose" approach they they pick the compromise that will be sort of a jack of all trades and master of none but cover pretty much all the needs. This comes with some drawbacks (larger outside dimensions, larger fuel consumption, less maneuverable, etc.) and some advantages (larger inside dimensions, more likely to fare better in a crash due to the added weight and ride height).

Normally I'd say that if you have a specific driving need only 1% of the time, rent rather than try to tack the feature onto your car's requirements. There's no point in driving around with those drawbacks 99% of the time for that 1% when you drive with the advantage. But something like the safety advantage is there all the time, unless the manufacturer really screwed up someplace else.

The biggest problem and misunderstanding lies with the CUV/CSUV segment. They are somehow viewed as "SUVs" but actually have almost all the disadvantages of a SUV with almost none of the advantages. Compared to the equivalent hatchback they sport a slightly larger body that increases drag and fuel consumption, and decreases maneuverability, bigger wheels and raised axles that just eat up more interior space, and probably have little to no safety benefit because the added weight contributes almost nothing to this (a Mercedes GLA weighs ~100Kg more than a normal A-class hatchback).

> and are much more likely to kill pedestrians and cyclists when involved in collisions

I rammed into the back of an Uber Cadillac SUV (who had hit someone in front of them) on the highway doing about ~50-60km/hr upon collision and my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch.

This almost makes me want an SUV rather than not. But I get what you're saying.

It's like wearing masks during COVID, it mainly only prevents you from getting others sick, not the other way around... but that's half the battle.

Cars are literally designed to collapse in a crash. It's what the crumple zones are for. The passenger compartment is a protected space and the rest of the car collapses to absorb as much energy as possible. This means that the accelerations experienced by the occupants are less, reducing the chance of serious injury.

Typical SUVs (excluding more modern car-chassis based ones) use body on frame construction - the chassis of the car is a big and heavy steel ladder. It doesn't have the same crash performance - even though it may look less damaged, the accelerations experienced by the passengers are greater.

https://www.autolist.com/guides/body-on-frame-vs-unibody

That only really works for vehicles of sufficient mass. Physics means the mass of a large engine needs a lot of force to move around quickly in a collision. So car vs motorcycle or full sized SUV vs a Supermini doesn’t work that well.

> my subcompact car completely crunched in while the SUV bumper barely had a scratch.

SUV are objectively safer due to size and mass. This comes at the cost of efficiency (fuel, space), and damage to other "softer" traffic participants (pedestrians, cyclists, smaller cars).

This effect is exaggerated by the fact that when braking or hitting something all cars lean forward and the nose goes down. So a small car crashing into the back of a SUV when both are braking (or the SUV just impacted someone in front) will definitely slide under the SUV and see a lot of damage. Also the back of a car is not designed to crumple as much as the front so it will see a lot less damage.

And because I see a wave of downvotes without an actual counter-argument, I will leave this here [0] and quote the essential:

> Research by the Highway Loss Data Institute shows that drivers and passengers in a hybrid are 25% less likely to be injured than those in the same model with a standard gasoline engine. And the death rate for drivers in hybrid crashes also was lower. The hybrid advantage is all about weight, it turns out.

Putting 2 and 2 together, between cars built to the same safety standards and level of quality, the heavier one is safer. I though this would be obvious for the technical crowd, especially the ones willing to get past reading just the first half a sentence from a comment.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/crash-test-hybrids-safer-than-o...

They can be relatively safer in multi-vehicle collisions (importantly, that remains the case whether you're comparing 3 vs 2.25 ton vehicles or, e.g. 2 vs 1.5 ton -- you're not objectively safer, but you are safer in the current metagame at the cost of killing more people who aren't you).

In single-vehicle collisions against approximately immovable objects (trees, barriers, etc) though, that mass is no longer an advantage, and if the crumple zone doesn't function as well because of the frame design in a larger vehicle then you'll be worse off.

It's probably also worth mentioning that heavier vehicles tend to be more susceptible to rollover. More importantly, traction scales sub-linearly with vehicle weight, so stopping distance, the ability to not slide off a curve, and whatnot all have reduced performance. That increase in the chance of an accident matters.

It might be the case that most accidents are completely unavoidable multi-vehicle collisions where one would want to optimize with a heavy, sturdy vehicle. That's a bit of a different argument from just pointing out that heavier vehicles suffer lower acceleration when colliding with lighter vehicles.

This is why I never understood the concept of "transportation as service" replacing privately owned vehicles. Sure a ride hailing service can work well enough for single urbanites to get around in a dense city. But when I go somewhere it's super helpful to have my own car as a secure storage area. And I want to leave a bunch of stuff permanently in my car so it's always available rather than wasting time loading and unloading a rental car for every trip.

This is true for me if I’m going to the park or camping or something like that, but for a typical day at the office or shopping, I don’t really need to be carrying around a carload of stuff.

There are many small conveniences that come from having a personally owned vehicle, but I would ecstatically spend an hour or two loading/unloading my car every couple weeks when I go on a trip as long as it meant I didn’t have to sit in traffic for hours every morning because everyone wants to have their own personal aircraft carrier sitting outside their office for whatever reason.

Thats exactly the struggle I choose to grapple with as a carless city person. 99% of my day-to-day, my bicycle and/or my backpack and feet are all I need and I love it.

But the car industry at large is so invested in this car-as-sanctuary idea that jumping into a random rental is often a frustrating experience. Pairing a phone for navigation or audio is a whole big thing. Finding a place that can rent a companion bike rack or other accessory like that for an outdoor trip is difficult, and supplying your own is usually forbidden - if you even feel comfortable betting on a generic enough model. Those 1% of activities where I really benefit from a car can be really difficult without the aid of a friend who owns their own personal vehicle, and it feels like that is by design a lot of the time.

My hope is that the proliferation of “transportation as a service” will eventually get to the point where all of those frictions you mentioned will be alleviated. If we stop treating cars like a personal sanctuary like you mentioned, perhaps we will get more focus on things like painlessly connecting your phone to a new vehicle at the tap of a button or making bike racks more commonplace.

Well, one can dream anyway.

One really difficult problem to solve is child car seats. That’s definitely no item you want to take to the museum and then just install in the next car for the drive home. My family did a few city trips where we wanted to use Uber to get around and it was a very frustrating experience.

I'm not sure it's by "design" so much as catering to very specialized tastes is difficult/expensive. Add to that, the sort of people wanting "outdoor trip" vehicles are probably going to stress those vehicles a lot more than the person renting a car to drive 30 miles from the airport and back.

There's a reason renting Jeeps in Death Valley is something like $200/day--assuming you have your own insurance that will actually cover how you intend to use it.

Even a lot of single urbanites want these things.

With subways like BART allowing bicycles, going around traffic jams and being economical and somewhat social, basically cars, taxis/Uber and public transit are fundamentally different services that strongly overlap.

Which means no one is going to be happy eliminating any of these and that makes it even harder for any self-driving taxi system since it would have to indefinitely navigate human filled roads and would add-to, not replace, all the traffic that exists now, threatening considerable congestion.

I think its an understated idea that for many people vehicles are a lot like mobile living rooms, except they're more private and can be attuned directly to whatever environment you want. Loud music, no sound, hot cold, etc. Its like a blanket fort. And for some, its by far the nicest "space" they have.

>I think its an understated idea that for many people vehicles are a lot like mobile living rooms

Ha! Part of my family owns an auto shop that I used to work at many years ago. I always thought of vehicles as "mobile trash cans" as it is actually quite common for us to be working on a car that has garbage that is level with both front and back seats. Even sometimes with trucks/vans, only with the higher seats that means the garbage is 2 ft deep. Perhaps it is just like their "living room".

The irony is we don't really mind these customers. They are not the ones that try to sue us for getting grease on their seats or scratching their windows. Yes we actually had someone complain that we scratched their window, as if our mechanics just walk around with diamond tipped drill bits putting .5" scratches on random glass.

My experience with people with dirty cars - they tend to use them only as transportation. Their living room isn't necessarily nearly as dirty (though just about NEVER clean). But their bathrooms are horrendous. Never use the bathroom of someone with a dirty car.

You can tell what possessions are part of a person's identity by how they maintain them.

I'm always confused when I see cars with a bunch of expensive non-functional aftermarket accessories on their car. Like, why would you spend money on that? Then I remember that for me, my car isn't really part of my "self", but for others it is.

Hey man, some of us draw the line somewhere! ;)

When I worked on the USS Carl Vinson we used to discuss what it would be like in some post apocalyptic scenario where we were left on the ship. We didn't like the idea. Of course, while the ship could have power and fresh water for years, the aircraft couldn't operate long without more fuel and the people on board would run out of food pretty quickly.

Bet you'd get good at fishing real quickly

I don't imagine fishing is great right next to an aircraft carrier, what with propellers and sonar and all that fun stuff making noise in the water and scaring fish away?

Presumably you can turn those off.

The ASW gear would make for a fantastic fish-finder!

Fishing from a boat is actually really easy. The hull is quite rich in small crustaceans and flora. This attracts bait fish, which attracts larger fish. A carrier at anchor bunkering would have all sorts of animals swimming around.

As long as there is fuel for the airplanes, couldn't they be used for whaling? How much of a whale is left after being hit by a hellfire missile?

Presumably, with power and fresh water, the flight deck could be converted into a rather sizable garden. It even has access to sunlight and protection from pests.

I haven't done the math but I doubt it works out. It would be like expecting to power your car with a solar panel on the roof.

I think that analogy is a bit of an exaggeration, gardens can be surprisingly space efficient if you plan well. It might still be too little for the whole crew, but it'd feed a lot of people for sure.

From a calorie perspective I don't think that's true. If you grow all potatoes which are one of the more efficient calorie/acre crop you have approximately: 90 days for 1 crop at ~15e6 kcal/acre. Nimitz class aircraft carrier has a surface area of ~1 acre and a crew of about 6000 people requiring ~10.8e6 kcal per day. So after 90 days of growing potatoes you would have about one days worth of food, or enough to feed ~66 people continuously. Of course you could always fish...

Convert crewmembers to fertilizer until you reach equilibrium.

Which videogame have you been playing? This comment seems a bit off-brand.

Crafting Humans.

Sunless Sea

Sometimes you gotta branch out of your personal style a little. :)

I thought you can (with Toyota?). As long as you do not drive it that much. But aircraft carrier need not just fluid. Well if you persevere a bit can the nuclear plant just do thing important whilst the ship is parked somewhere.

>> When I worked on the USS Carl Vinson we used to discuss what it would be like in some post apocalyptic scenario where we were left on the ship. We didn't like the idea. Of course, while the ship could have power and fresh water for years, the aircraft couldn't operate long without more fuel and the people on board would run out of food pretty quickly.

> Presumably, with power and fresh water, the flight deck could be converted into a rather sizable garden. It even has access to sunlight and protection from pests.

You'd need dirt too, and lots of it.

In such a scenario, it'd probably most practical just to anchor or dock the ship somewhere safe near land, and use its facilities to jump-start a settlement. I'm guessing with the maintenance possible in such a scenario, all the ship's systems would break down within a decade or so (and it'd need to be refueled with enriched uranium at about that point, too), so you really wouldn't want to stay dependent on it for too long.

> You'd need dirt too, and lots of it.

You could do hydro/aeroponics. You have plenty of fertalizer in the form of human waste, fish waste, and other things.

I like that idea too. I just wish it didn’t involve belching fossil fuel emissions. More and more, the exhaust smells really ruin any fun or use of vehicles for me. The shelter in place period that dropped the number of cars driving by my house and thus improved air quality really underscored how much pollution there is around me.

>More and more, the exhaust smells really ruin any fun or use of vehicles for me.

What vehicles are you driving/living by? Vehicles made in the past 10 years have virtually no smell once the engines are warmed up unless something's wrong with the catalytic converter.

Ancient diesels or newer “deleted” diesels - all floored for maximum exhaust it seems. Also just other big vehicles. Garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc.

But even the fumes from my hybrid are a noticeable bummer if I’m out of the vehicle.

I can tell you didn't grow up during the 70's, with leaded gas and carburetors that dumped raw fuel out the tailpipe. In comparison, today's cars emit practically nothing but water. (there's room for improvement of course - but I see that as being an EV once they get to a half-day's driving range)

Those are definitely still driving around here, though rarer.

I agree most gas powered vehicles are basically odorless and have low impact on the air that is noticeable to a human.

However, even a single diesel vehicle can make the air in a half-block radius harder to breathe for minutes after it passes, even relatively recent ones. It is really shocking to me that such vehicles are legal, even if only by grandfathering in. Maybe I'm uniquely sensitive to them or something.

Even worse, companies actively seek them out because they are super reliable and will run for up to a million miles or more. In principle you are not allowed to make any more but there are companies selling "glider kits" that are basically an engineless truck that you can drop your old engine into.

It is a great way to view your car.

I once made a pickup like this for a big camping road trip by putting 100W of solar panels on the canopy roof rails of a 1990s truck. An extra car battery went in the back, and it worked fantastically.

I could keep all of my stuff charged while camping, which let me stick around longer in the forests and parks. And it could buffer enough energy to keep a Switch or laptop charged for the occasional stretch of inclement weather.

Of course, 100W of panels did not generate enough power to run climate control or a refrigerator, but compared to a traditional generator, I thought the silence was worth that tradeoff.

Putting a beefier and smarter generator in passenger cars makes a ton of sense. There's already an alternator anyways, which my '90s donor car manual actually refers to as a "generator". And I think the newer Prius cars, at least the V models, can run climate control off the battery and automatically turn on the engine to recharge it when necessary.

Also, this trend might make thickly-settled campgrounds more palatable. It would be nice if they didn't always turn into a susurration of ancient sputtering generators at sunset.

Oh, and the idea of using the outlets to charge electric dirt bikes? Now that is exciting.

>If warfare suddenly disappeared, you’ve got these mobile bases you can anchor off the coast of a disaster zone with massive capabilities for logistics, a nuclear power plant, water purifier, hospital, machine shops, etc. Etc.

I wasn't on a supercarrier but I did render humanitarian aid in Indonesia from an LHD. This is absolutely one of the missions these ships are capable of.

Yes I worded that poorly. Because even today a lot of these ships undertake these kinds of missions.

But imagine if you could retool these ships with a singular primary goal of disaster relief. Imagine if every carrier group was some internationally funded disaster response team.

What would the world be like if the entire military might of the major world powers was repurposed to providing aid and building infrastructure?

100%. My car is completely equipped for the vast majority of unexpected scenarios that I could plausibly run into while going about my life. Impromptu road trip? Check. Camping? Check. Got held up in the middle of nowhere and need a meal? Check.

This isn’t just idle fantasizing; I actually use these capabilities all the time. It’s hard to imagine how much flexibility a well-equipped vehicle gives you when you’re living in a dense urban center without a car (which is how I often live a few years at a time).

And, of course, having a high-quality SUV makes the logistics of my equipment-heavy interests way easier. I often have to lug around scuba gear, ski gear, big rifles, power tools, etc., and often on extremely shitty roads (muddy, potholed, iced, you name it). This would be completely infeasible with a non-“aircraft carrier” commuter vehicle.

If you haven't read it already, you might enjoy the Culture series[1] by Iain Banks. It's sci-fi about a Culture of humanoids that have effectively mastered the galaxy, and they have GSVs (General Systems Vehicles) which are huge spaceships that effectively carry all of the Culture's knowledge and manufacturing capability with them wherever they go.

As an additional side note, many of the spaceships in the series are sentient and have interesting names, two of which SpaceX used to name their own drone ships.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_series

#vanlife is this idea. The generator here is total overkill for most daily needs - you can get diesel/propane powered appliances that work better. The application for this generator is powertools, where you do need high electric power. Most electric devices like computers, lighting, are really efficient today and you can get by on just a single deep cycle battery.

I actually don't think solar panels are really needed today unless you're doing stationary vanlife, like setting up an aid camp in Africa. It's just so much simpler to charge your battery from your alternator while you drive.

One use case for solar is keeping a fridge running when having the truck parked while on a multi day backpacking excursion.

I actually think a propane fridge is even better! https://www.warehouseappliance.com/blog/the-advantages-of-a-...

Tip an Engel refrigerator/freezer will run off a 12V 100 ahr deep cycle battery for 3-4 days.

I wonder if it is worth it to the world for the extra space, air pollution, micro particles that you take into beautiful and populated environments. But as long as your happy I guess, who cares about that?

That is what the USAs aircraft carrier have predominantly been used for in recent memory.

Anyway, me weekend vehicle is a VW T5 Transporter and you can pry it’s dirt spewing 2.5L turbo diesel from my cold. dead. hands. It’s a massive piece of shit with regard to anything bolted to the engine, like the whole rest of the car, but it handles like a dream and uses fuckall diesel.

I’ve owned vans for two decades now. There’s no going back.

I agree with your sentiment, the new f-150 looks amazing, here's another article which details some of the more camping/overlanding possibilities with it: https://www.outsideonline.com/2415243/2021-ford-f-150-previe...

I wonder if you could use it to power your house during an outage, given pg&e was trigger happy with turning off northern California's power last year this could be a great use case.

You could use it power a house the same way you can with any generator - using a double male end extension cord.

The reason you can't find such a cord at Home Depot is that it's dangerous and a generator should only be connected to a home electrical panel through a transfer switch that prevents paralleling it with the utility supply.

It would also be more economical to install a stationary generator or battery system for emergency power.

You probably know this but for others: doing this is a great way to kill linesmen who are trying to repair your local outages. It’s often illegal for the above reasons.

You need a few things to go wrong in order to kill a lineman.

The load of the neighborhood looks a lot like a short to your generator. The lineman should be grounding the line because the power company and other linemen kill linemen by energizing things much more often than homeowners kill linemen and he wants to avoid that. Even just momentarily grounding the line shorts your generator. Most linemen are going to assume the line is hot (it often is) and work accordingly so either your genset breaker will flip when your generator tries to power the rest of the grid or you'll break something when the grid forces your generator to instantly synchronize with it.

There was a big thread on a popular VS owned forum that shall remain nameless and they were able to find two instances in North America of linemen being killed by back feeds and one of the stories didn't conclusively say the death was caused by a generator back-feeding the grid.

Yeah you should use a proper transfer switch but it's not nearly as risky as internet commenters make it out to be. The real reason to use a transfer switch is so that the system is stupid proof enough that you can make a different member of your household go plug in the generator when the power goes out in the middle of a hurricane.

Thanks for sharing, this is why I love Hacker News.

Many things in electrical and building codes aren't that risky to break one at a time, but they all contribute to safety by eliminating possible hazards.

You're right that temporary protective grounding protects power workers from inadvertent energization, but that is primarily to protect from sources of hazardous energy that can't be isolated (like lightning or induction from parallel lines). Temporary grounding can fail too (improper application, bad jumper, an accident severs the earth connection after the job begins, etc) so we provide multiple levels of protection instead of relying on just one thing to keep people safe.

Electrical systems need to be stupid proof because although you might be smart, the next person who comes along won't be. I agree that improper use of a home generator is unlikely to injure someone, but the job as electrical engineers is to think of unlikely but hazardous things and prevent them from happening.

definitely. I just helped my parents get a Honda 2200 working at their home in Northern California in anticipation of the PG&E blackouts. We tested it out and it can power certain things together, but not an entire house. The 2200 Watt generator was able to power a fridge/freezer + some electronics, which is enough to get by for a couple days.

I wish houses were a fraction as well made and useful as even economy cars.

Unfortunately all that engineering talent is wasted designing ever more wasteful vehicles that are ruining the environment. Kind of like loads of CS engineering talent is wasted improving insidious ad technology that is ruining society.

Yeah even talking about cookie-cutter houses is non-PC

Well even cookie-cutter houses used to be pretty nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_Modern_Homes

Take a look at the innovation in the manufactured/modular home space. The quality/price ratio has been improving tremendously. Even for site-built homes, using things like prebuilt trusses is an improvement.

Even the 5+1 apartments that are disliked for their uniform aesthetics are a big step up on quality/price than the approaches of decades past.

There are manufacturers such as Huf Haus that make very high quality (luxury) prefabricated homes[1]. They feature all the modern fittings you could want, and they are installed in the factory not on site. There was an episode of Grand Designs which featured a Huf Haus[2], it was constructed in a week on a concrete slab.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huf_Haus

[2] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2go2ld

I have been expecting Honda to do something like this for ages. They seem to have the technology, but I guess they don't have the demographic.

Interesting that Ford is coming out with a truck with a power supply so closely after Tesla's. Too close I suspect for it to be a copy-cat move. Which leaves 'great minds think alike' and 'someone got tipped off.'

Sort of. Honda doesn't really make any trucks designed for commercial use, which I suspect is the market Ford is talking about when they mention the stats about their customers carrying generators.

Yeah, this kinda makes me want an F-150. Though I'd really like a more conventional SUV form factor with this generator in it. I generally keep my car stocked with a tool bag, emergency supplies, etc. such that in most cases, if I'm in proximity to my car, I have everything I might need. Add a generator and I'm golden.

You can add a 1kw inverter to any car, the 12w system will handle it just fine though not indefinitely. There's a really simple formula you need to know. P=UI P=Power U=Voltage I=Current

Get the specs of you generator and you can see how much you can sustain while your engine is running. The inverters do usually create a square voltage "wave" rather than a good sine one, but it has never been a problem in my experience.

I agree with others: I love this feature, but I wonder if most people need the level of power being offered vs. an inverter that can do 400W or so.

Having a "second aux battery" would be a nice factory option, so you don't worry about draining the starter. There are mods you can do to vehicles to make this work.

In the case of the F-150, it seems Ford has the numbers to back up that a lot of people would otherwise literally lug generators around with them. For the construction market, I absolutely suspect this feature will be well-used.

I'd like it in an SUV, and I'm willing to bet if offered, folks would jump on it, but I agree it's a lot less likely it'd be heavily used.

Re: Adding another battery, I've considered (and done some napkin math) adding solar panels and a second battery to my car to power the computer I run onboard. But it's something I don't have the time or money to play with right now.

Ford is clearly aiming at their fleet customers with this feature -- they're the ones hauling 5000 watt generators around. Fleet sales are a particularly profitable segment for Ford, they want to attract those customers more than your average Joe off the street.

In my kit I also have six basic towels. The kind you get at the gym. I’ll give about one away per year for assorted things. I know this is a meme but honestly, bring a towel.

Agreed, and Cybertruck for the win. All the benefit of a pickup, with a big back seat and enclosed storage - with a multitude of power sourcing options (including just parked in sun, if the solar cover becomes a thing).

Nope. The hybrid can pump out 72 kwh/10 hour day, and still tow your equipment trailer home. CT isn't going to be able to do this for a while yet

> multitude of power sourcing options (including just parked in sun, if the solar cover becomes a thing).

Under good conditions and direct sunlight, the total power that reaches the earth's surface is about 1000 watts per square meter. The best (commercialized) solar panels right now top out right around 20% efficiency. Ignoring losses due to conversion, you're looking at about 200 watts tops.

Over an entire day of ideal summer conditions you'll maybe get enough power out of it to make a quick pot of coffee.

I’m very familiar with the numbers. Solar bed cover is good for a few miles per day - which may be all you need in an emergency.

You might be interested in the Rivian R1T, which has a tent and a grill built into it: https://rivian.com/r1t/

Not affiliated with them, I just think it's dope and I wish I had a place to plug it in and an excuse to spend that much money.

The main difference is that there is a 95+% probability that Ford will manufacture between 500,000 and 1,000,000 of their trucks over the next year. If you want one, you will most definitely be able to get one.

I like the idea too but, alas, with this many people on the planet it is just not possible to have each family with their own personal aircraft carrier. Also cars are just not built to last. They are consumables and maintaining one for any length of time is significantly more difficult than a building.

Because of a growing family I bought a van recently. I thought I would hate it because of it's size but I actually love it. It's like driving a fortress around. Third row folds down so it's also like a cargo van. I don't think I could go back to a small sedan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com